2025:CGHC:54517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 2648 of 2024 Harvinder Singh Gulati S/o Late Amar Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Agrasen Marg Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police Sta- tion Kotwali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinay Nigam S/o Mahesh Chandra Nigam Aged About 64 Years R/o Puna Tahsil And District Puna Maharashtra, (Current Address - 703 Royal Kassia. Parandwal Chowk Near Nandini Medical , Dehu - Pune Maharashtra Pin - 412109. ) 3 - Mahendra Dinkar S/o D Y Dinkar Aged About 56 Years Puna Tahsil And District Puna Maharashtra ( Current Address - 1-2-337, Flat No. 001, Gagan Mahal Apartments, Phool Bagh Domalgudu, Himayath Nagar Hyderabad (Telangana ) Pin – 500029. 4 - Satya Nagalingam S/o Shri Nagalingam Aged About 29 Years Puna Tahsil And District Puna Maharashtra, C/o - Achutani Balakrishna Murthy, Current Address - Flat No. 401, Akash Apts. Aziz Bagh, Dd Colony Bagh Amberpeth Hyderabad - Telangana Pin No. – 500013. 5 - Rohit Patil S/o Shivaji Patil Aged About 35 Years Puna Tahsil And Dis- trict Puna Maharashtra, Current Address - Bhagya Nagar, 1st Cross H. No. 744, Belgaum ( Karnataka ) Pin – 590006. 6 - Achutani Patil @ Achutani Balaji S/o Achutani Balakrishna Murti Aged About 63 Years Puna Tahsil And District Puna Maharashtra. Current Address - Flat No. 401, Akash Apts. Aziz Bagh, Dd Colony Bagh Amberpeth Hyder- abad - Telangana Pin No. – 500013. 7 - Michael Liv S/o Shri Gunkiyan Aged About 55 Years ( C.E.O. Of Dao Ev. Tech Pvt. Ltd. ) R/o Puna Tahsil And District Puna Maharashtra, C/o Achutani Balakrishna Murthy, Current Address - Flat No. 401, Akash Apts Aziz Bagh, Dd Colony Bagh Amberpeth Hyderabad - Telangana Pin No. - 500013. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Advocate For State/respondent No.1 : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 03.11.2025 1. This CrMP has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in MJC No.01/2024, whereby, the learned Sessions Court has dismissed by application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.PC by the applicant/complainant. 2. Brief facts of this case is that the accused persons have colluded and received approximately Rs.23,00,000/- from the petitioner/complainant for the dealership of electric two wheeler and by fraudulently usurping the said Rs.23,00,000/- and deliberately increased the pre-decided price of the said two wheeler, then when the complainant expressed his inability in the said dealership, he returned his approximately Rs. 23,00,000/- when he asked for the money, he was refused it. On the basis of complaint, offence was registered against the accused persons. 3. Vide order dated 04.12.2023, the learned trial Court has granted anticipatory bail to respondents No.2 to 6 with the terms and conditions. Thereafter, petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.12.2023 by filing an application under Section 439(2) of CrPC before the Sessions Court, Korba which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, and the order dated 04.12.2023 was affirmed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that looking to the gravity of offence, which has been caused by accused persons/respondents No.2 to 6 and their bail which was granted by order dated 04.12.2023 and the same is affirmed/maintained by order dated 29.07.2024 may be cancelled. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State submits that the orders passed by the learned Courts below are just and proper. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. On the issue with regard to rejection of bail and 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 dealt 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, 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. 8. 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.” 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 cancellation of bail, this Court finds no such reason or supervening circumstance so as to warrant cancellation of bail granted to the accused. Though the counsel has 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. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant