1 2025:CGHC:13637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 313 of 2020 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through State House Officer, Police Station - Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Poonam Agrawal W/o Shri Nikhil Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o B -5 Prinyadarshini Nagar, Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Rajat Prime Complex Flat No. 708, Amlidih, Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/03/2025 1. The State/petitioner has filed the instant petition being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 03.05.2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 2163 of 2019 whereby the accused/respondent has released on bail for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 489-C, 489-D, 489-E of IPC. 2. As per prosecution story in brief is that on 02.12.2018, on the basis of information received from an informant, police officials VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.05.22 12:16:53 +0530 2 raided in the house of the respondent /accused i.e. situated at Amlidih, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Allegedly, at that time, the respondent /accused was present there along with her husband namely Nikhil Kumar Singh. It is further alleged that on being searched, police officials seized counterfeit Indian Currency Notes of Rs. 25,000/- of Rs. 2,000/- total amount 5,00,00,000/- and printed note of Rs. 2000/-(one side blank) total 750 seat valuation at Rs. 60,00,000/- total valuation Rs. 5,60,00,000/- and one laptop, colour printer, paper cutter, charger of laptop of charger and one mobile phone of apple company from the possession of the respondent /accused and police has registered the offence punishable under section 489-A, 489-C, 489-D, 489- E of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent /accused and after completion of investigation, challan has been produced before the learned concern Court. The respondent/accused had preferred application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before this Hon’ble Court, which has been allowed vide its order dated 03.05.2019, hence this petition is being filed herewith. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present petition is submitted on following grounds. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate that the respondent has committed serious offence of financial irregularities and misuse of fake currency, with intention to earn undue benefit. He also submits that the respondent has released on regular bail by misleading 3 the actual fact committed by him, hence bail order of the present respondent is liable to be cancelled. He also prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow petition and cancel order dated 03.05.2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court passed in M.Cr.C No. 2163 of 2019, in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that order passed in MCRC No. 2163 of 2019, is proper and legal and there is no infirmity or illegality in the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the final report, charge sheet and other documents annexed to the petition. 6. 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 dealth 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 4 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 the cancellation of bail already granted. 7. 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 manner. No supervening circumstances have 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." 8. On perusal of record this Court has considered view that petitioner has already enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court in MCRC No. 2163 of 2019 vide order dated 05.03.2019, considering the entire 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. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) vaishali JUDGE