1 / 6 2025:CGHC:59949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2052 of 2025 Shyamlal Sonwani S/o Jhanguram Sonwani Aged About 42 Years R/o Pahanda, P.S. Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Father of Deceased) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O., Berla, District - Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Poshan Sahu S/o Ajuram Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o - Pahanda P.S. Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate For State /Respondent No.1 : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 14/11/2025 1. The instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27/06/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989)) District Bemetara, in Special Case ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.10 18:17:50 +0530 2 / 6 No.08/2025, whereby the application under Section 439Cr.P.C./483 of B.N.S.S. of the Respondent No.2 has been allowed. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal for cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent No.2 in connection with Crime No.118/2025 registered in Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, C.G. for offence punishable under section 108 of BNS and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 3. The case of the prosecution, as projected by the appellant are that one shyamlal sonwani has lodged a complaint regarding his deceased daughter namely ku. Parwati sonwani,who was working as a nurse in bhawani hospital since 6 months and she regularly going for serving her duty in bhawani hospital in the morning at about 8:30 "o" clock and from the hospital at about 4:30 "o" clock in the evening coming frorn bhawani hospital to her home, just like other days on 08/02/2025 by following her daily routine she left the hospital at 4:30 pm but her daughter Parvati Sonwani called the father shyamlal sonwani on her mobile number 9171000712 from her mobile number 6263024950 at around 7:30 pm and told that she has boarded a bus to come here. Upon being told, he came from his village to Piprauli to pick up his daughter, but kept waiting for his daughter till the last bus coming from Berla arrived, but the last bus of his daughter did not come. Then he tried to contact his daughter by calling her mobile number several times, but it was told that her number was switched off. Then he inquired about his daughter from his relatives and her friends, but she could not be traced. 3 / 6 On 09.02.2025 at 9:15 am, he got information that a neem tree located in Narsahi in the middle of village Kharra Piproldih was hanging with a rope. The rope on which his daughter is hanging from the noose has broken in half and bent. On the the above information applicant/informant, FIR No. 13/2025 was registered. After investigation, FIR No. 118/2025 was registered against the accused in Berla Police Station under Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code, 2023, which was registered after complete investigation proceedings under Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. That, on the basis of the written complaint a F.I.R. having crime no.148/2022 has been lodged against the accused/respondent no.02 at P.S._Berla, Dist.- Bemetara (C.G.). After the registering the F.I.R.,Investigated the crime in question and after completion of investigation police has filed the charge sheet on 15/06/2025 in connection with charge sheet no. 85/2025. Thereafter the present respondent no. 02 has moved an regular bail application before the learned trial court which has been allowed. Hence, this appeal for cancellation of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the the Learned court of special judge Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act 1989, District Bemetara (C.G.) for the grant of bail is suffering with vast illegality because no specific reasons has been assigned in the order for the grant of bail to the accused. He would next contend that the accused was last present with the deceased and there is also the last seen wittiness with 4 / 6 deceased. He would next contend that the complainant has also disclosed that there was also a love affair of accused and his deceased daughter thus from the perusal of charge sheet it is also clear that the death of deceased ku. Parwati sonwani had happened just because of false promise and further the denial from marriage after having a long love relationship of 5 years. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/accused would support the impugned order and would submit that the order passed by the Special Judge requires no interference by this Court and would submit that the instant appeal may be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of the order dated 27/06/2025 would show that the bail was granted to the accused after duly considering the allegations, nature of relationship between the parties, surrounding circumstances, and the fact that no material was placed to show likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. The Trial Court has imposed suitable conditions, including furnishing of personal bond of ₹50,000/-, appearance on each date, and non-interference with witnesses. 8. Supreme Court, in the matter of Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, on the issue with regard to rejection of bail and cancellation of bail already granted, has held thus in para 4, which reads as under:- 5 / 6 “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 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, bailonce 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. 9. Further, 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.” 6 / 6 10. In the case of Abdul Basit Versus Md. Abdul Kadir Choudhury (2015) 1 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if the accused persons misrepresented the fact for obtaining the order of bail, the High Court should not have entertained the prayer for cancellation of bail by making reviewing earlier order of grant of bail. 11. In the present cases the orders of grant of bail has been challenged on the ground of it being perverse in law. Further on perusal of the order passed by the Special Judge, I have found that the Special Judge has considered the entire facts & circumstances of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case has granted the regular bail to the Respondent No.2. Since the circumstances brought on record do not reflect that the accused person has misused the bail granted to him, I could not have determined the issue for cancellation of bail on the ground of it being perverse in law. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, pleadings made in the petition and the aforementioned principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of cancellation of bail, this Court finds no good ground to cancel the regular bail granted to respondent No.2/accused Poshan Sahu. 13. Accordingly, the instant appeal being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu