1 2025:CGHC:51394 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3133 of 2025 Swaraj Mallick S/o Shri C.R. Mallick Aged About 41 Years R/o Plot No A/4 Road No. 5, Ashish Nagar, Risali (West), Bhilai, P.S.- Nevai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station, Nevai, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Ajay Kumar S/o Brijnandan Prasad Aged About 38 Years Village And Post Mohammadpur, Police Station And Tehsil- Asthawa, District- Nalanda (Bihar) 3 - Smt. Kumari Atima Singh W/o Ajay Kumar Aged About 36 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Kumar Atima Singh In The Impugned Order) Village And Post- Mohammadpur, Police Station And Tehsil- Asthawa, District- Nalanda (Bihar) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.10.2025 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents/State. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 and 3 – namely Ajay Kumar and Smt. Kumari Atima Singh, as they were enlarged on anticipatory bail by order dated 27.06.2025 in MCRCA Nos. 803 of 2025. 3. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had preferred anticipatory Bail Applications under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No. 197/2023, registered at Police Station - Newai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents No. 2 & 3, by falsely assuring the petitioner to secure his re-employment at Bhilai Steel Plant, deceitfully obtained an amount of ₹25,00,000/- from him between 15.06.2022 and 02.11.2022, on the basis of which Crime No. 197/2023 was registered at Police Station Nevai for the offences under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC. It is further submitted that the respondents No. 2 & 3, who were absconding for a considerable period, were later granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 27.06.2025 in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 803/2025 subject to strict conditions, including non-inducement, non- threatening of witnesses, and non-repetition of similar offences. However, after obtaining bail, the respondents No. 2 & 3, being 3 politically influential persons from Bihar, have started extending serious life threats to the petitioner through WhatsApp messages, thereby intimidating him to withdraw the case. The petitioner has already made a written complaint regarding these threats before the Superintendent of Police, Durg on 22.08.2025. It is thus contended that the said conduct of respondents No. 2 & 3 amounts to a deliberate violation of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail, and therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to them deserves to be cancelled in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State opposes the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondents No. 2 and 3/accused vide order dated 27.06.2025 in MCRCA No. 803/2025, and there appears to be no any infirmity 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 persons dated 27.06.2025 in MCRCA No. 803/2025. 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 4 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 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. In the instant case, from the perusal of documents it transpires that the pleadings are not supported with a minimum proof that the respondents No. 2 and 3 are 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 5 witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing 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 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 and as such, this application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondents No 2 and 3, is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal