1 2025:CGHC:55571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3438 of 2025 Jagatpal Singh Thakur S/o Late Gopal Singh Thakur Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 6c/13, South Vasundhara Nagar Bhilai Dist - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O P.S. Supela, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent Of Police Durg Dist - Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Manoj Rajput S/o Jawahar Singh Rajput Aged About 50 Years R/o 20/5, Ward No. 03, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Bhilai District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 14/11/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition for setting aside the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned court of 8th Additional Sessions Judge, District- Durg (C.G.) wherein the learned Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to 2 respondent no. 3. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the present FIR arises from dated 14.07.2025, when the complainant/applicant had lodged a written complaint before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Supela, District- Durg against respondent no. 3 alleging that the respondent, while applying for a passport, had concealed material facts relating to his criminal antecedents and previous conviction and obtained Passport No. Z7319050 issued on 04.09.2023 by submitting false and fabricated declarations and affidavits before the Passport Authority. Before the surrender of the passport by respondent no. 3 applicant had preferred complaints before the SP Durg, IG Durg, RPO Durg, Prime Minister, Foreign Ministry, Delhi dated 14.02.2024 and on 10.02.2025 to Prime Minister, Home Minister, Delhi, Foreign Ministry Delhi on 18.02.2025 to DGP on 19.02.2025 to SP Durg. The respondent no. 3 filed an application under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of an Anticipatory Bail against the crime registered against the respondent no. 3 under Crime No. 806/25 before P.S./ Supela, District- Durg under Section 420 of IPC and Section 12 of Passport Act, 1967 on 21.07.2025 and submitted his written argument on 22.07.2025 by misleading and suppressing material fact about his previous antecedent. 3. Respondent no. 3 filed an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 before the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg. On 22.07.2025 anticipatory bail was granted to respondent no. 3 and several conditions were imposed upon him which were mandatory in nature. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his submission stated that respondent no. 3 is a habitual offender having numerous criminal antecedents against him at various police stations within the Districts of Durg and Bemetara (C.G.). He would further contend that the respondent has been declared as a Gunda which clearly establishes his habitual and dangerous character, yet this vital fact 3 was ignored while granting him anticipatory bail. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the above contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 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 4 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 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, 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 bail granted to respondent no. 3. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima