1 2025:CGHC:13445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 2453 of 2019 Kedia Steels U/o Gnd Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Through Authorized Representative, Shri Virendra Patel, S/o Shri Sudama Prasad Patel, C/o Kedia Steels U/o Gnd Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Gnd Chambers, Bhaisthan, Agrasen Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Incharge, Police Station Aazad Chowk, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Firoj Ahmad Siddiqui S/o Anwarullah Aged About 52 Years R/o- A/v 101, Golden Trade Centre Nalaso Para, East Tunilg Road, Thana Analdar, District- Paldhar, Maharashtra. ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. GA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 20.03.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 read with Section 439 (2) of Cr.PC for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2/accused by learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Raipur, vide order dated 25.02.2019. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner/complainant had lodged a report against respondent 2 No.2/accused before the concerned Police Station, based upon which, FIR was registered against him for offence under Section 420 of IPC. Case was presented before concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class and as per order passed by JMFC, respondent No.2 sent to Jail for Judicial Custody. Thereafter respondent No.2 filed a bail application before the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Raipur, which was allowed on 25.02.2019 and respondent No.2 has been granted bail on certain terms and conditions. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that when respondent no.2 was in jail, both the parties (petitioner and respondent no.2) had a Razinama with conditions that respondent No.2 shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner in cash and will issue two post dated cheques (bearing no.316898 amountig to Rs.Rs.5,12,786/- with the date of 25.02.2019 and cheque no.316899 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- with the date of 25.05.2019), after getting bail in order to pay remaining amount. Relying on the conditions of Razinama when petitioner herein received the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the brother of respondent no. 2, the petitioner agreed to raise "No objection" on bail application of the respondent No.2 before the Session Judge. Thereafter, bail was granted to respondent No.2 by the concerned Session Judge, however, when the cheques issued by respondent no.2 were deposited by the petitioner in HDFC bank, Raipur both the cheques got dishonored on 21.05.2019 and 07.07.2019. 4. The petitioner filed an application before the concerned JMFC for 3 cancellation of bail as the conditions of Razinama has been violated by respondent No.2, however, vide order dated 25.02.2019, said application of petitioner came to be rejected as the bail was granted to respondent no.2 by the learned Session Judge. Thereafter, petitioner herein filed an application for cancellation of bail before the concerned Session Judge, which also came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 20.09.2019. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that accused/respondent No.2 after being released on bail pursuant to order dated 20.09.2019, neither followed the terms and condition imposed upon him by the Court nor followed the conditions of Razinama executed between respondent No.2 and the petitioner/complainant. The petitioner agreed to raise no objection before the Session Court only relying on the condition mentioned by respondent No.2 in Razinama. Learned Court below ignored the fact that the cheques given by respondent No.2 for payment of the said amount to the petitioner got dishonored on presenting before the Bank. Since respondent No.2 is violating the terms and conditions of the bail order dated 20.09.2019, the same may be cancelled in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State supports the impugned order. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. 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 4 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. 9. 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:- 5 “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.” 10. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the fact that case against the respondent No.2/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is still pending consideration before the concerned Court, further keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions on the issue of cancellation of bail, this Court finds no such reason or supervening circumstance so as to warrant cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondent No.2. 11.Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.