1 2025:CGHC:53121 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2659 of 2025 A.B.C. Nil ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sarangarh, District - Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2. Ankit Koshley S/o Shri Laxmidutta Koshley, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Hirri, Near Bus Stand Police Station Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner :Mr. Udho Ram Koshaley, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State :Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :Mr. Room Ram Naik, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Udho Ram Koshaley, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1/State as well as Mr. Room Ram Naik, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 – Ankit Koshley, as he was enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2025 in MCRCA No. 939/2025. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.03 17:49:05 +0530 2 3. The petitioner had preferred an anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.226/2025, registered at Police Station- Sarangarh, District – Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2/accused after being granted anticipatory bail by this Court in pursuance of the order dated 24.07.2025, has not followed the condition of the bail as prescribed under the Law. It is further submitted that after being released on bail, the accused/respondent No. 2 has repeatedly threatened the complainant to make obscene photos and videos viral. In this regard, the petitioner/victim has made several complaints to the concerned police authorities against accused/respondent No. 2 for threatening to kill, abduct the victim, and publish obscene videos of the victim using filthy language. However, the police authorities have not taken any action on the complaints of the petitioner/complainant till date. Due to this inaction, the complainant and his family members are being continuously harassed, live in constant fear, and their lives are in danger. If the bail order of the accused/respondent No. 2 is not cancelled, the accused will be encouraged and his morale will be boosted to commit further offences in the future. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 should be cancelled. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 3 No.1/State opposes the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that as per the victim’s recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, it appears that the victim is a major girl, involved in physical relationship with the respondent No.2 since long time and when their relationship could not be materialized, she lodged the FIR against the respondent No.2 on which ground this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2 vide order dated 24.07.2025 in MCRCA No.939/2025, and there appears to be no any infirmity while granting anticipatory 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 anticipatory bail to the accused person dated 24.07.2025 in MCRCA No.939/2025. 7. From perusal of entire records of this petition and the documents do not suggest that the applicant 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 4 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. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that after being released on anticipatory bail, the accused/respondent No. 2 has attempted to misuse the liberty granted to him. Consequently, this Court issued notice to him. It has also been brought to notice that he posted certain material on Instagram, which indicates that he has violated the conditions of bail. However, it has been informed that the statement of the victim has already been recorded and the trial is in progress. Furthermore, it has been stated that respondent No. 2/accused filed an application claiming juvenility, asserting that on the date of the first offence, i.e., 10.05.2021, he was a minor. On this basis, he moved an application under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for being declared a juvenile. The learned trial Court, however, rejected the said application on the ground that although the first offence was committed on 10.05.2021, the accused/respondent No. 2 subsequently committed repeated offences against the victim/petitioner, continuing up to 13.05.2025, by which time he had 5 attained majority. The order of rejection was challenged by him in Criminal Revision (CRR) No. 1310/2025 against the learned trial Court’s order dated 11.09.2025, but the same has been dismissed by this Court today itself. 9. 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. 10. Moreover, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and make efforts to conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no any legal impediment. 11. It is made clear that if the accused/respondent No. 2 attempts to create any hindrance in the smooth progress of the trial, the petitioner/victim shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for cancellation of his bail. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of. 13. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti