1 2025:CGHC:16812 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2097 of 2022 1 - A.B.C. (Victim) (In view of the various judicial pronouncements the description of the victim/prosecutrix is not being disclosed in the cause title. However the description of the victim is being filed in a closed envelope which is being marked as Annexure A-1) ... Petitioner/Applicant versus 1 - Deepak @ Pradeep Dewangan S/o Late Raju Dewangan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Turenar, P.S. Nagarnar District-Bastar (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Nagarnar, Distt.-Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents /Non-applicants For Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.2 : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 09-04-2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02-12-2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (under POCSO Act) Bastar, place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.34/2022 by which regular bail was granted to the accused/respondent No.1. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 is accused in Crime No.88/2022 registered at Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. He was granted regular bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 02-12-2022 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.34/2022. Thereafter, during trial of the Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 case the victim has been examined as PW-1 on 03-08-2022 and her mother has been examined as PW-2 on 03-08-2022 itself. On 06-09-2022 the victim has moved an application before the learned trial Court that she has not given any evidence before the Court and the evidence which has been recorded before the Court is not her evidence, but it has been recorded by impersonating her by some other person by which the accused/respondent No.1 is benefited and therefore, appropriate enquiry may be conducted and appropriate action may be taken against the erring person. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner file WPCR No. 982/2022 before the the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court for direction to the learned trial Court for appropriate enquiry in the matter as she was being cheated and defrauded by impersonating her and recorded the evidence by unknown person. The said WPCR No.982/2022 was disposed of vide order dated 02-01-2023 with a direction to the learned trial Court to make necessary enquiry in the matter and to decide the said application of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of that order. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted by the learned trial Court and after due enquiry the learned trial Court comes into conclusion that the evidence available in the record is in fact evidence of the victim and her mother and there is no impersonation of any other person. The said enquiry report dated 20-01-2023 is also annexed in the petition as Annexure-R-1/4 and it is also found that it is the petitioner and her mother who gave evidence before the Court. 4. Prior to that enquiry report the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail which was granted to respondent No.1 vide order dated 02-12-2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was cheated by recording their evidence by impersonation as they have not recorded their evidence before the Court. Their objection at the time of granting bail to respondent No.1 has not been considered by the learned trial 3 Court and the respondent No.1 has been granted bail, though the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by him. Since the petitioner is raising objection from very beginning but her objection has not been considered and the respondent No.1 has been benefited by the bail, his bail order is liable to be cancelled. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that in the enquiry report dated 20-01-2023 it is amply clear that it is the petitioner and her mother who recorded their statement, having not supported the prosecution’s case, have turned hostile and it is only to put the respondent No.1 in pressure and put him behind bar they made frivolous attempt to file the present petition. Their objection has rightly been considered by the learned trial Court while granting bail to respondent No.1. There is no allegation against respondent No.1 that after releasing on bail he has threatened them or he has violated the condition of bail, therefore, there is no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would also submit that the learned trial Court has considered the objection of the petitioner and has granted bail to respondent No.1. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 9. From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it is quite vivid that after passing of the order by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WPCR No.982/2022 dated 02-01-2023 the matter was enquired by the learned trial Court and vide its enquiry report dated 20-01-2023 it is found that the petitioner and her mother have got recorded their statement before the learned trial Court on 03-08-2022 and there is no impersonation in the same. Prior to the enquiry report and decision in their WPCR No.982/2022 they 4 have already filed the present petition for cancellation of bail, but there is no substantial ground raised by the petitioner for cancellation of bail. Their ground that they have been impersonated has already been enquired by the learned trial Court and it is found that there is no impersonation of the petitioner or her mother, that enquiry report has not been challenged till date at any forum. Once it has been found that there is no impersonation of the petitioner or her mother and they have recorded their evidence before the learned trial Court, the same cannot be made as a ground for cancellation of bail which has been granted to respondent No.1 vide order dated 02-12- 2022. Further, from perusal of the order dated 02-12-2022 it also reflects that the objection raised by the petitioner has been considered by the learned trial Court and bail has been granted to respondent No.1. There is no allegation that after releasing on bail respondent No.1 has done any act which makes him disentitle for bail or his bail is liable to be cancelled. 10. In the matter of Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 4 of its judgment held 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 dealt 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.” 5 11. Further, in the matter of X. Vs. State of Telangana & Another, 2018 (16) SCC 511, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 17 as under: “17. The accused had the benefit of an order granting him anticipatory bail. The grant of anticipatory bail was cancelled principally on the ground that he had not disclosed the pendency of a prosecution against him in the 2G Spectrum case. The Court has been informed during the course of the hearing that the said prosecution has ended in an acquittal. Regular bail was granted by the High Court on 17 November 2017 in the present case. The second FIR which was lodged on 22 November 2017 is not, in our view, a supervening circumstance of such a nature as would warrant the cancellation of the bail which was granted by the High Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has submitted that the lodging of the second FIR, four days after the order of bail is merely an attempt to bolster a case based on a supervening event and that it suffers from vagueness and a complete absence of details. We are not inclined to make any further observations and leave the matter there. Above all, the Court must bear in mind that it is a settled principle of law that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a supervening event has been made out. We find that to be absent in the present case.” 12. After considering the entire facts and circumstances and the material annexed with the petition and taking into consideration the view taken in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any ground to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No.1 vide order dated 02-12-2022 and to allow the petition. Consequently the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil