1 2025:CGHC:53633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 735 of 2023 1 - Parasram Bhagat S/o Late Jhiliram Bhagat Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No.05, Village Phundurdihari (Godhanpur), Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Batouli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mahesh Lakda, S/o Amrit Ram, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Chirga, Police Station And Tahsil Batouli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL For Respondent No.2 Shri Rishabh Gupta, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.06 10:48:09 +0530 2 03/11/2025 The present petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 in connection with Crime No. 128/2021 registered at Police Station Batouli, District Sarguja for the offences punishable under Sections 365,394,355,506-B, 294 and 34 IPC. 2. It is submitted that respondent No.2 was enlarged on regular bail by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja, Ambikapur vide order dated 8.11.2021. The petitioner thereafter moved an application before the same Court for cancellation of the said bail alleging that the respondent No.2 had abused and threatened him on several occasions and has been involved in other criminal activities after his release. The learned Special Judge by order dated 17.03.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 04/2023 rejected the said application holding that there was no violation of the bail conditions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conduct of the respondent No.2 after being released on bail clearly demonstrates misuse of the liberty granted to him and that the Court below erred in not cancelling the bail. He contended that the petitioner had made specific complaints on 9.10.2022, 19.11.2022 and 12.12.2022 reporting incidents of threats and intimidation extended by respondent No.2. 4. Learned State counsel on the other hand supports the impugned order and submits that the alleged incidents were duly inquired into an 3 no prima facie material was found substantiating the allegations of threat or misuse of bail by respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are false, vague and motivated made only to harass the respondent and to seek cancellation of bail without any just cause. It is contended that the respondent No.2 has never violated any condition imposed by the Court and he is not indulged in any act of intimidation or obstruction of justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are on inimical terms due to prior enmity and therefore the petitioner has been filed out of personal vendetta. Hence, no ground for cancellation of bail is made out. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. It is well settled that cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail. Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless the conduct of the accused after release shows that he has misused the liberty, tampered with the evidence, influenced witnesses or otherwise interfered with the due course of justice. 8. In the present case, except for bare allegations of abuse and threats, no tangible material has been brought on record to demonstrate any violation of bail conditions any misuse of liberty by respondent No.2. The complaints referred to by the petitioner do not reveal any 4 credible or corroborative evidence indicating that respondent No.2 attempted to influence the petitioner or any witness in connection with the pending trial. 9. Learned trial court has considered all relevant aspects and rightly held that there exists no cogent reason warranting cancellation of bail. This Court finds no perversity, illegality or irregularity in the order impugned dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Surguja, Abmikapur. 10. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge