1 2025:CGHC:1684 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 3281 of 2024 • XYZ. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent of Police Station Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Manoj Kumar Mandavi S/o Late Shri Jairam Mandavi Aged About 30 Years Presently Posted As Deputy Superintendent Of Police Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya & Mr. SP Sannat, Advocates. For Respondent-State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, PL. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 10.01.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2/accused by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kongagaon, (CG) vide order dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure A-1). 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that complainant/petitioner has lodged report before the concerned Police Station mentioning therein that accused/respondent No.2 herein committed forceful sexual intercourse with her on many occasion. Based upon the report, FIR was 2 registered against the accused for offence under Sections 376 & 376(2) (n) of the IPC and he has been arrested. However, learned Session Judge has granted bail to the accused on certain terms and condition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-1 on the ground of it being perverse as learned Session Court has ignored the fact that accused has committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim/complainant without her consent and also confined her in the hotel from 07.05.2023 to 08.05.2023. Further, accused/respondent No.2 after being released on bail pursuant to order Annexure P-1, has not followed the terms and condition imposed upon him by the Court concerned as the accused has trying to disturb the proceeding of the trial Court. Since respondent No.2/accused is violating the terms and conditions of the bail order dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), the same may be cancelled in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State opposes the above contention of counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. On the issue with regard to rejection/cancellation of bail already granted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, has held in para 4, which reads as under:- “4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealth with on different basis. Very 3 cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hazari Lal Das Vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 652 held in para 7, which reads thus:- “7. There is nothing on record that there has been interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice by the appellant. It also does not appear from the record that the concession granted to him has been abused in any manner. No supervening circumstances have surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting the anticipatory bail has been interfered with by the High Court in the absence of cogent and convincing circumstances. We are, thus, satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained.” 4 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, pleadings made in the petition, further keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions on the issue of rejection/cancellation of bail already granted, this Court finds no such reason or supervening circumstance so as to warrant cancellation of bail granted to the accused. It is clear from the order Annexure P-1 that the learned Session Court has granted bail to the accused/respondent No.2 considering the totality of the facts of the case. The petitioner has though contended that the accused is misusing the liberty granted to him and are not following the terms and conditions imposed upon him, but has not brought on record any such thing which could substantiate his aforesaid contention and make out a prima facie case for cancellation of bail. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. However, trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial, expeditiously as soon as possible. Sd/- Sd Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-