1 2025:CGHC:51961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No.2384 of 2025 1 - Smt. Krishna Chaudhry, W/o Chaithnaya Chaudhry, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Mokhaputka, Thana and Tehsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Through Station House Officer (SHO) P.S. Saraipali, Dist- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Mukesh Chaudhry S/o Rabilal Chaudhry Aged About 49 Years R/o House No.157/1, Ward No. 01, At Mokhaputka Post Singhanpur, Saraipali Dist- Mahasamund (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manharan Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. AG For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shivank Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 17/10/2025 1. The present petition has been preferred by the applicant under Section 483 (3) of BNSS for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2/accused vide order dated 08.04.2025 in MCRC Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 No.809/2025. 2. The respondent No.2/accused was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 in MCRC No.809/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after being released on bail, the respondent No.2 started harassing and intimidating the petitioner and other family members, as the respondent No.2 is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. He further submits that on 10.06.2025, the respondent No.2 with an ulterior motive, the respondent No.2 illegally trespassed the petitioner’s premises and also did quarrel with his mother Priyavati Choudhary, who is the mother of the respondent No.2. Therefore, the bail granted to the respondent No.2 by this Court may kindly be cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner is not the complainant in the concerned trial. This Court had granted bail to the respondent No.2 after hearing both the parties and that time the petitioner also appeared as objector. Now the petitioner again filed this petitioner on false grounds. The mother of the respondent No.2 is complainant in the present trial and she did not file any application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2. 5. Learned State counsel also supported the argument of the respondent No.2 and submits that as per the documents 3 (Annexure-R-2/1 & R-2/2), the main dispute is between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and this Court granted bail to the respondent No.2 in MCRC No.809/2025 vide order dated 08.09.2025 in which the complainant is Priyawati Choudhary who is the mother of the respondent No.2 and she did not file any application for cancellation of bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court in the matter of Chandra Kumar Jain vs State of Chhattisgarh and another, passed in CRMP No.1686/2019 and other connected matters, decided on 25.06.2021, held in paras 26 & 27 as under:- “26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Abdul Basit alias Raju and others Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Choudhary and another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754, has considered all its earlier judgments on the issue and pointed out distinction between review/recall of order granting bail from cancellation of bail order and have held that the Court granting bail cannot review its order on the ground of its being illegal, unjustified or perverse in view of express bar contained in Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. and held in paragraphs 20, 21, 26 and 27 of the report, which reads thus:- “20. In the instant case, the respondents herein had filed the criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court seeking cancellation of bail on grounds that the bail was obtained by the petitioners herein by gross misrepresentation of facts, misleading the court and indulging in fraud. Thus, the petition challenged the legality of the grant of bail and required the bail order to be set aside on ground of its being perverse in law. Such determination would entail eventual cancellation of bail. The circumstances brought 4 on record did not reflect any situation where the bail was misused by the petitioner-accused. Therefore, the High Court could not have entertained the said petition and cancelled the bail on grounds of it being perverse in law. 21. It is an accepted principle of law that when a matter has been finally disposed of by a court, the court is, in the absence of a direct statutory provision, functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for relief in the matter unless and until the previous order of final disposal has been set aside or modified to that extent. It is also settled law that the judgment and order in the absence of any express provision in the Code for the same. Section 362 of the Code operates as a bar to any alteration or review of the cases disposed of by the court. The singular exception to the said statutory bar is correction of clerical or arithmetical error by the court. 26. In the instant case, the order for bail in the bail application preferred by the accused- petitioners herein finally disposes of the issue in consideration and grants relief of bail to the applicants therein. Since, no express provision for review of order granting bail exists under the Code, the High Court becomes functus officio and Section 362 of the Code applies herein barring the review of judgment and order of the Court granting bail to the petitioner-accused. Even though the cancellation of bail rides on the satisfaction and discretion of the Court under Section 439(2) of the Code, it does not vest the power of review in the court which granted bail. Even in the light of fact of misrepresentation by the petitioner-accused during the grant of bail, the High Court could not have entertained the respondent/informant's prayer by setting in review of its judgment by entertaining miscellaneous petition. 27. Herein, the High Court has assigned an erroneous interpretation to the well settled position of law, assumed expanded jurisdiction into itself and passed an order in contravention of Section 362 of the Code cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners herein. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the High Court is not 5 justified in reviewing its earlier order of grant of bail and thus, the impugned judgment and order required to be set aside.” 27. Further, 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 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.” 8. It is submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused would try to threaten the witnesses but it is clear that the main complainant Priyawati Choudhary did not file any application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2 and learned State counsel also supported the argument of 6 respondent No.2 so no supervening circumstance has been made out for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2. There is no cogent material available to indicate that the accused has been guilty of the conduct which would warrant him being deprived of his liberty. 9. In the result, this petition under Section 483 (3) of BNSS is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala