1 2025:CGHC:103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3488 of 2024 Maheshwari Markam D/o Mohan Markam Aged About 30 Years R/o Near ITI Ground, Bansula Deepa, Police Station And Tahsil- Basna, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station- Sankra, District – Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vidya Sagar Ratre S/o Ram Ratan Ratre Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Kodabhat, Police Station- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present Place Of Working i.e. Village- Baroli, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents/State. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 - Vidya Sagar Ratre, as he was enlarged on anticipatory bail by an order dated 08.08.2024 in MCRCA No. 881 of 2024. 2 3. The respondent No.2 had preferred an anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.98/2024, registered at Police Station - Sankra, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/respondent No.2 after being granted anticipatory bail by this Court has started threatening the petitioner/complainant and he has started pressurizing the petitioner/complainant to withdraw the complaint lodged by him against the respondent No.2. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 should be canceled. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State vehemently opposes the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the applicant is a Government Employee and the complainant of the case at the instance, one Ramesh Kumar Dadsena with whom the applicant had some dispute with regard to dishonourment of cheque, was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act on 27.02.2023 and the victim was not known to the applicant and only on account of dispute between the applicant and Shri Ramesh Kumar Dadsena, the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant, on which ground this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2/accused vide order dated 08.08.2024 in MCRCA No. 881 of 2024, and there appears to be no any infirmity while passing the same. Therefore, the application is completely frivolous and deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order of 3 this Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused person/respondent No.2 dated 08.08.2024 in MCRCA No. 881 of 2024. 7. From the perusal of entire records of this petition and the documents do not suggest that the petitioner is able to project any valid reason for cancellation of bail with respect to the touchstone of principle laid down by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in case of Savitri Agarwal and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 325, has reiterated the earlier principles laid down in Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 and observed that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail has to be considered or dealt with on different basis. It is settled principle that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. 8. In the instant case, from the perusal of documents it transpires that the pleadings are not supported with a minimum proof that the respondent No.2 is trying to tamper with the evidence or are creating obstructions in fair & impartial trial so as to create a very cogent and overwhelming situation for cancellation of bail. 9. Furthermore, the anticipatory bail granted can only be canceled when (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety etc. It is also 4 well settled that even if two views are possible, once the bail has been granted, it should not be cancelled. In facts of this case nowhere suggest that any of the aforesaid condition exists in the instance case, therefore, the principles laid down as above shall squarely apply in the instant case. 10. Considering the same and applying the aforesaid principles, in the considered view of this Court, no case is made out for cancellation of bail or review or recall the order, it transpires from the record that the applicant is a Government Employee and the complainant of the case at the instance, one Ramesh Kumar Dadsena with whom the applicant had some dispute with regard to dishonourment of cheque, was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act on 27.02.2023 and the victim was not known to the applicant and only on account of dispute between the applicant and Shri Ramesh Kumar Dadsena, the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant, on the basis of the which this Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, and after the anticipatory bail being granted to the respondent No.2 by this Court on 08.08.2024, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for cancelling the bail appears to be afterthought to get the anticipatory bail of the applicant cancelled, therefore, I do not find any good ground made out for consideration of the same. 11. In view of the above, prayer for cancellation of the order passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2/accused, is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar