1 2025:CGHC:52466 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3226 of 2025 Xxx Nil ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 2 - Umashankar Pandey, S/o Shri Vijay Prasad Pandey, Aged About 32 Years R/o Chikal Karmari Muli, Thana- Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents/State. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the regular bail granted to the respondent No. 2 - Umashankar Pandey, as he was enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2024 in MCRC No. 3743 of 2024. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The applicant had preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he had been arrested in connection with Crime No. 201/2024, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2/accused after being granted regular bail by this Court in pursuance of the order dated 18.07.2024, has not followed the condition of the bail as prescribed under the Law. It is further submitted that after being released on bail, the respondent No.2/accused has threatened the petitioner and pressurizing her to withdraw the cases filed against him and for that purpose, the respondent No.2 has not only sent various SMS/Whatsapp messages to the petitioner, but he has also been indulged into a criminal act of assaulting the petitioner physically on 04.05.2025, for which a written complaint was made by the petitioner before the Police Station City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) on 04.05.2025. Therefore, the regular bail granted to the respondent No. 2 should be cancelled. 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 victim is a major lady and she was the consenting party in commission of the offence, on which ground this Court has granted regular bail to the respondent No.2 vide order dated 18.07.2024 in MCRC No. 3743 of 2024, furthermore, the allegation that the accused has abused and threatened the petitioner, goes to show that it is a vague report just to 3 get the bail of the respondent No.2 cancelled, and there appears to be no any infirmity while granting regular bail to the respondent No.2. Therefore, the instant application is completely frivolous and deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order of this Court granting regular bail to the accused person dated 18.07.2024 in MCRC No. 3743 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 861/2025 [Kailash Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.] while setting aside a High Court ruling cancelling bail of an accused, has observed here as under: “Suffice to observe, liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered. We are satisfied that there was no valid reason for the High Court to cancel the bail without there being any material to show, even prima facie, that conduct of the appellant post grant of bail has been such that he should be deprived of his liberty. There are also no allegations of influence being exerted or threat extended to the witnesses or of tampering the evidence. Material to demonstrate that dilatory tactics have been adopted to procrastinate the trial is also conspicuous by its absence.,” It is settled principle that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. 4 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 and impartial trial so as to create a very cogent and overwhelming situation for cancellation of bail. 9. Furthermore, the regular 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 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 this Court had granted regular bail to the respondent No.2, and after the regular bail being granted to the respondent No.2 on 18.07.2024, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for cancelling the bail appears to be an afterthought to get the bail of the respondent No.2 cancelled, therefore, I do not &nd any good ground made out for consideration of the same. 5 11. In view of the above, prayer for cancellation of the order passed by this Court granting regular bail to the respondent No.2/accused, is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 12. However, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, if there is no any legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar