2025:CGHC:13638 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1179 of 2020 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Anand Jain S/o Uttam Jain Aged About 39 Years R/o Ramdadheen Marg, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), Presently R/o 9, Ff, Panchwati Fahehabad Marg, Agra, Agra Tirouli, Agra (Uttar Pradesh), District : Agra, Uttar Pradesh ... Respondent For Petitioner/State : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G. For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/03/2025 1. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 14.09.2018 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G) in Bail Petition No. 472 of 2018 whereby the learned Copurt below has granted bail to the respondent who is an accused in Crime No. 36 of 2008 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon in the offence under Section 307/34, 120B of IPC , the State prefers the instant application. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.05.22 12:16:53 +0530 2. Brief facts of the case, are that on 19.01.2008 at about 8.15 PM the complainant Navin Agrawal who is son of the injured Dharamchand Agrawal was in his office and his father Dharamchand Agrawal was in the inner room of that office, at that time an accused came to the office and enquired about the injured Dharamchand Agrawal. As soon as the injured came out from the room, the said accused fired gunshot at him, because of which injured sustained injury on his chest. The accused then fled from the spot along with another co-accused who was waiting outside on motorcycle. Subsequently, on the report made by Navin Agrawal a Dehati Nalsi recorded and on the basis of which the Crime No. 36/2008 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. during the course of investigation 5 accused persons namely D. Shankar, Mithlesh Maravi, Rajkumar, A. Chinna and Abhishek were arrested by the Police. In the memorandum statement given by A. Chinna it was stated that the contract for killing of injured Dharamchand Agrawal was given by accused Anand Jain and Saurabh Jain for Rs. 4 lacs. The said fact was corroborated by the memorandum statement of other accused persons. In the case diary statement of injured Dharamchand Agrawal, it was revealed that there is a pending property dispute of the injured with Anand Jain and Saurabh Jain. It is relevant to mention that after the incident the accused Saurabh Jain and Anand Jain absconded. The supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the two accused persons showing them absconding on 10.06.2010 and subsequently a permanent arrest warrant was issued by the Court against both the accused Anand Jain and Saurabh Jain. The trial of the initially arrested 5 accused persons took place vide S.T. No. 20/2009 and vide judgment dated 17.02.2012 accused D. Shankar was convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. While other accused persons were acquitted. The bail application vide bail petition No. 472/2018 was filed by the respondent Anand Jain and the same has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 14.09.2019. applicant/ State is aggrieved by the above mentioned order dated 14.09.2019 and has, therefore, been constrained to file the instant application for cancellation of bail. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the final report, charge sheet and other documents annexed to the petition. 5. 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 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. 6. 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." 7. On perusal of records I have found that learned Session Judge, Rajnandgaon had passed the order on 14.09.2018 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C and granted bail to the respondent on the basis of entire facts and circumstances of the case and there is no ground raised by the petitioner that respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the bail granted by the trial Court, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail, already granted. In this case petitioner has not shown any cogent and overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of the bail, already granted. In order impugned there is no illegality, perversity and jurisdictional error committed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 8. Considering the 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. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Sd/ vaishali