1 / 3 2025:CGHC:1014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2925 of 202 3 • XYZ ... Applicant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh S.H.O., Police Station Kunkuri, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ashish Kumar Gupta S/o Jagarnath Gupta Aged About 24 Years Caste - Rouniyar, R/o Village And Police Station Bagbahar, Tehsil Pathalgaon, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate For Respondent-State For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judg e ORDER ON BOARD 07/01/2025 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to non-applicant No. 2. 2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that when non-applicant No. 2 was in jail and after his release, applicant and her family members are being threatened by non-applicant No. 2 and his family members. The report was lodged to the concerned police station, however, no action has been taken on the report and therefore the bail granted to non-applicant No. 2 be cancelled. 3. Learned State counsel submits that additional return has been filed specifically pleading that after receipt of complainant, SHO, P.S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur initiated a proceeding under Section 107, 116(3) of the CrPC PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 against non-applicant No. 2 and Istagasa No. 519/2023 is filed. Thereafter again applicant made complaint before the Dy. Inspector General of Police and Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jashpur, copy of complaint is filed as Annexure R-2. The investigating officer conducted enquiry where statement of applicant is recorded on 26.03.2024 where applicant stated that no such harassment is made by non-applicant No. 2. Copy of statement of applicant is filed as Annexure R-3. 4. The additional return/ reply was filed on 09.04.2024. The case was thereafter listed on 03.05.2024 and this Court recorded as under: “Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate for the State. Ms. Manisha Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Learned State counsel submits that based on the report made by the applicant before the Superintendent of Police on 04.11.2023, proceedings under Section 107 and 116 of CrPC was drawn against applicant and in that proceeding the statement of applicant along with others were also recorded. In her statement applicant has stated that since 06.11.2023 till 26.03.2024 non-applicant No. 2 has not talked with her and he has also not tried to enquire about her and her son’s good health. She pointed out that in the statement it has come that even on 06.11.2023 non- applicant No. 2 has not given any threatening of any nature. Learned counsel for applicant submits that he may be granted further week’s time to file counter affidavit.” 5. Today when this case is listed for hearing, learned counsel for applicant again made prayer for granting time, however, even during course of oral arguments learned counsel for applicant has not specifically controverted document Annexure R-3 which is statement of complainant recorded by the police during enquiry. On 03.05.2024, time was sought for by the counsel for applicant to file additional affidavit, however, no such affidavit is filed and even after 07 months counsel for applicant submitted that he may be granted time to file additional affidavit. 3 / 3 6. From the facts pleaded, in the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 of CrPC by the police on 26.03.2024, it has come that since 06.11.2023 till 26.03.2024 there was no talk of applicant with the accused. 7. Considering entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the statement of victim recorded on 26.03.2024, wherein she stated that since 06.11.2023 till 26.03.2024 non-applicant No. 2 was not having any talk with the victim and has not taken care of complainant and her child during that period and further the family members of complainant are also not taking care of her, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow this application for cancellation of bail of non-applicant No. 2. 8. Consequently, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, in the opinion of this Court, is bereft of merit, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE