1 2025:CGHC:40293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 28 of 2024 1 - Vinita Madan D/o Late Subhash Chandra Madan Aged About 49 Years R/o Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vivek Madan S/o Late Subhash Chandra Madan Aged About 42 Years R/o Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ps- Basantpur,, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Girdhar Lal Sahu S/o Late Lekhram Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Pendari, Ward No. 20, Ps- Lalbagh, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Cg --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Adv. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Adv. ( Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order On Board 11-8-2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 439 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the petitioners for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused vide order dated 6-10-2023 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 5187/2023. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Petitioner No. 1/complainant Vinita Madan lodged a written complaint alleging therein that the respondent Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.08.22 12:57:38 +0530 2 No. 2 entered into an agreement to sale on 23-8-2022 with the petitioners for selling of property situated at village Pendri Distt. Rajnandgaon bearing Khasra No.625 of 50 x 90 sq. ft. for a sale consideration of Rs.40 lakh, out of which, the respondent No. 2 received Rs.35 lakh through bank transaction and remaining Rs.5 lakh was given by the petitioners in cash. Subsequently, the petitioners came to know that the respondent No. 2 is not the owner of the aforesaid property, despite that, making agreement to sale with the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 comes under the act of cheating as well as forging of documents. Based on the above facts, FIR for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the respondent No. 2 on 12-4-2023 and by the impugned order, he has been granted regular bail. The petitioners have filed instant CRMP for cancellation of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, bail was granted to the respondent No. 2 by this Court, on the basis of submission made by his counsel that he is ready to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners herein, but now he is denying the execute registered sale deed. Hence, the bail granted to respondent No.2 by the impugned order may be cancelled. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, submits that, the dispute between the parties, appears to be of a civil nature. Bail was granted to the respondent No. 2 by this Court with observation that, complainants may take proper recourse to the law to get their amount from the respondent No. 2. Hence, appropriate orders may be passed. 3 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that, dispute between the parties is of civil nature, which has been given colour of criminal case. The petitioners have not made out any ground for cancellation of bail, hence, instant CRMP may be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. While granting bail to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 6-10-2023, this Court has observed that, the complainants may take proper recourse to the law to get their amount from the respondent No. 2. From perusal of the documents annexed with the CRMP and perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that, the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and no any good ground has been brought before this Court to cancel the bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused vide impugned order. 9. Three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi reported in 1978 (2) SCC 411 has made the following elemental distinction in defining the nature of exercise while cancelling bail that, rejection of bail when bail is applied for, is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. 4 10. Again, in the matter of Ramcharan v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2004 (13) SCC 617, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that order of bail can be canelled on existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances but not on re-appreciation of facts of the case. 11. The petitioners/complainants have not brought any compelling facts, which could be considered just & proper to take a view for cancelling the bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused person. 12. In view of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the afore-cited judgments i.e. State (Delhi Administration) (supra) & Ramcharan (supra), I am of the view that the present CrMP has no substance, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Consequently, the Cr.M.P., being devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak-