1 2025:CGHC:55298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3418 of 2025 Abc Nill ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Superintendent Of Police Sakti, District Sakti C.G. 3 - Station House O)cer, Police Station- Sakti, District Sakti C.G. 4 - Narayan Prasad Patel S/o Makhan Lal Patel Aged About 47 Years R/o Nawaparakalan, Singhansara District Janjgir-Champa C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Amit Verma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents/State. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 4 - Narayan Prasad Patel, as he was enlarged on anticipatory bail by an order dated 03.09.2025 in MCRCA No.1337/2025. 3. The respondent No.4 had preferred anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No. 282/2025, registered at Police Station – Sakti, District – Sakti (C.G.) for the o?ences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 after being granted bail by this Court started threatening the victim/petitioner and had also made a pressure upon the victim to withdraw the report registered at P.S. Sakti, District – Sakti, and regarding the same the written complainant had been lodged on 12.09.2025 and a copy of the same was also forwarded before the Superintendent of Police, Sakti/respondent No.2. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 4, be cancelled. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State vehemently opposes the prayer of the instant petition Aled by the petitioner. It is submitted that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 4/accused vide order dated 03.09.2025 in MCRCA No.1337/2025, and there appears to be no any inArmity and jurisdictional error while passing the same. Therefore, the application is completely frivolous and deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused person dated 03.09.2025 in MCRCA No.1337/2025. 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 3 Court ruling cancelling bail of an accused, has observed here as under: “Suce 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 satised 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 in!uence 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. 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. 4 is trying to tamper with the evidence or are creating obstructions in fair & impartial trial so as to create a very cogent and overwhelming situation for cancellation of bail. 9. Furthermore, the anticipatory bail granted can only be cancelled 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 Deeing 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 4 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 anticipatory bail to the respondent No.4, and after the anticipatory bail being granted to the respondent No. 4 on 03.09.2025, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for cancelling the bail appears to be an afterthought to get the anticipatory bail of the respondent No.4 cancelled, therefore, I do not And any good ground made out for consideration of the same. 11. In view of the above, prayer for cancellation of the order passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No.4/accused, is rejected. 12. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned to at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, as expeditiously as possible, if there is no any legal impediment. 13. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned, for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar