1 2025:CGHC:13763 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 347 of 2020 Abhishek Banchhor S/o Dhal Singh Banchhor Aged About 28 Years Resident Of J- Pocket, Qtr. No. 4-B, Maroda Sector, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Atul Shrivastava S/o Shri Ravishankar Akhori Aged About 28 Years R/o Sadak, No. 2, Dixit Colony, Nehru Nagar (East), Police Station Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For State : Mr. G.L. Uike, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 22.03.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by the grant of anticipatory bail vide order dated 26.07.2019(Annexure A/2) passed in MCRC (A) No. 956 of 2019 and thereafter threatening by the respondent no. 1. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that respondent no. 1 and other co-accused Mulam Paka Gopal got a commercial vehicle bearing 2 registration no. CG 04 LF 8200 and CG 04 LH 8200 financed for a sum of Rs. 22 Lakhs and Rs. 23,49,776/- respectively from the HDFC Bank, Giriraj Building Station Road, Durg. The petitioner was shown as a guarantor. The matter when came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he lodged a report against the respondent no. 1. 3. Respondent no1 preferred an application for grant of anticipatory bail as they he was apprehending his arrest in connection with crime no. 0181/2019, which was allowed vide order dated 26.07.2019, bail was granted and several conditions were imposed which were mandatory in nature. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in his submission stated that the nature and gravity of the offence has not been appreciated properly by the learned court, therefore, he pleads to allow this application and further pleads to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.1 in Crime No. 0181/19 pending in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the above contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. 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:- 3 “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. 8. 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 4 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.” 9. On perusal of record,it reveals that learned Trial Court has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case while granting the bail to the respondent no. 1. Also there is no cogent and convincing circumstances or any supervening circumstances to cancel the bail order of respondent no. 1. 10. 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 No.1. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/-sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Alfiza