1 / 9 2025:CGHC:61103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2866 of 2025 XYZ Nil --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home (Police) Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer Police Station Tilda Nevra District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Balkrishna Jangade S/o Late Brijlal Jangade Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Temari Thana Nandgath District- Bemetara Present Address H.I.G. 1/13 Pirada Housing Board Thana Vidhansabha District -Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 2877 of 2025 XYZ Nil ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.12.17 14:37:25 +0530 2 / 9 2 - Superintendent Of Police Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Station House Officer Police Station - Tilda Nevra, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Anjana Jangade W/o Balkrishna Jangade Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Temari Thana Nandgath Distt.- Bemetara Present Address - H.I.G. 1/13, Pirada Housing Board Thana- Vidhansabha Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate For State/respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 (in both petitions) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate with Mr. Gyan Prakash Dandekar, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 15/12/2025 1. Petitioners have filed these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions seeking cancellation of bail granted to applicants Balkrishna Jangde and Smt. Anjana Jangde (respondents No.4 herein) vide order dated 31.01.2025 passed in MCRC No.917 of 2025 and order dated 26.08.2021 passed in MCRC No.4521 of 2021 respectively, on the ground that after release of accused persons as mentioned above on bail they have threatened the prosecution witnesses and have made an attempt to influence them. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after release of applicants/respondents on bail and examination of victim and her husband, at the time of examination of independent witness Pramod Verma, he received phone calls on his mobile phone from different mobile numbers including mobile No.9303113279 of Jaimohan Sharma @ Lukkey; 7809820989 of Deepak @ Bablu; 8120910829 of Ravikant 3 / 9 @ Gappu. Incident was reported to concerned police station and police after due investigation on complaint made, had registered the crime and arrested the accused persons therein. Respondents -Balkrishna Jangde and Smt. Anjana Jangde (applicants in MCRC No.917 of 2025 and MCRC No.4521 of 2025 respectively) have misused the liberty granted to them, hence, the bail granted to Balkrishna Jangde and Smt. Anjana Jangde be cancelled. In support of her submissions, she relies upon the decisions in case of Victim ‘X’ Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4335 of 2024 and Ajwar Vs. Waseem and Anr. arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.513 of 2023. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.4- Balkrishna Jangde and Smt. Anjana Jangde opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that prior to lodging of report, victim and her relative/husband was examined before the trial Court. There is no direct connecting evidence against applicants/respondents to say that they have engaged any person or have given threat to any of the witnesses personally. He also pointed out that trial is about to complete. Out of 30 witnesses, 14 have already been examined and 4 witnesses have been given up by the prosecution during trial and remaining witnesses are only police witnesses. In support of his submission he places reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Kumar Jangid & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.2381 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1632 of 2025]. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that pursuant to observation made by this Court, case diary of another crime number 4 / 9 registered by police on complaint made by Pramod Verma bearing Crime No.358 of 2025 registered at Police Station Tilda- Nevra is called for. According to material available in case diary, it is appearing that as per allegation, Pramod Verma was threatened from different mobile numbers i.e. mobile No.9303113279 of Jaimohan Sharma @ Lukkey; mobile no. 7809820989 of Deepak @ Bablu; and mobile No. 8120910829 of Ravikant @ Gappu, specifying that witnesses should not make statement against Balkrishna Jangde and Smt. Anjana Jangde. However, upon asking, he submits that in memorandum statement of Jaimohan @ Lukkey, it has come that relatives of applicants Balkrishna and Smt. Anjana Jangde have contacted him to contact the witnesses of earlier crime i.e Crime No.109/21. Persons who were arrested based on mobile numbers have not directly stated about the name of these applicants/respondents to have contacted them. However, he submits that in memorandum statement of Dinesh Dongre, it has come that Balkrishna Jangde has stated to contact witnesses and convince them to make statement in favour of them. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.4/applicant submits that in the aforementioned crime i.e. Crime No.358 of 2025, subsequently registered by police based on report lodged by Pramod Verma (one of witness), Balkrishna Jangde and Anjana Jangde have been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 11.12.2025 and 05.12.2025 passed in MCRCA No.1953 of 2025 and MCRCA No.1923 of 2025 respectively. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to her information, remaining witnesses includes doctor and some other 5 / 9 witnesses and doctors are being also approached by relatives of Balkrishna Jangde and Smt. Anjana Jangde. She also contended that accused persons are appearing before trial Court only at the end of day and not when Court starts in the morning and therefore there is delay in proceeding the trial. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/applicants (accused) also submits that Pramod Verma is already examined on 07.08.2025. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with this writ petition. 9. Perusal of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition would show that these petitions are filed on 02.09.2025 and 03.09.2025 respectively i.e. after examination of Pramod Verma (witness) and the complainant in subsequent crime, on the allegation that relatives or other persons engaged by Balkrishna and Anjana Jangde are trying to influence, threaten Pramod Vemra to make statement in favour of Balkrishina and Anjana Jangde . Witnesses remaining to be examined are Govt. servants i.e. police officials and doctors . All the material witnesses have been examined before filing of these two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking cancellation of bail. 10. Cancelling the bail once granted is in very exceptional circumstances when the case is made out by leading cogent evidence, that persons who have been released on bail have misused liberty granted to them. 11. In the case at hand, according to case diary of another crime registered on complaint of Pramod Verma (witness), except memorandum statement of Dinesh Dongre, there is no other connecting material to 6 / 9 suggest that respondent/applicants are also involved in threatening or influencing material witnesses, more so at this stage, all the material witnesses including victim, her relatives and also Pramod Verma, independent witness have now been examined and the case law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in Victim ‘X” Vs. State of Bihar (supra) is on different facts. In that case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that High Court while granting bail to accused persons therein has not considered the provision under Section 15 A (3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and have also observed that order granting bail is a cryptic order. 12. Case of Ajwar (supra) is also on different facts. In that case, Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside the order of bail granted to accused persons therein has observed thus: “31. In our opinion, the High Court has completely lost sight of the principles that conventionally govern a Court's discretion at the time of deciding whether bail ought to be granted or not. The High Court has ignored the fact that the appellant-complainant has stuck to his version as recorded in the FIR and that even after entering the witness-box, the appellant-complainant and three eyewitnesses have specified the roles of the accused-respondents in the entire incident. The High Court has also overlooked the fact that the respondents have previous criminal history details whereof have been furnished by the Counsel for the State of UP. It is worthwhile to note that the accused Nazim was granted bail in FIR No. 214 of 2016 on 10th January, 2017 and while on ball, he is alleged to have committed a double murder of the two sons of the appellant-complainant. x x x 7 / 9 x x x x x x 35. All the aforesaid factors when examined collectively, leave no manner of doubt that the respondents do not deserve the concession of bail. As a result, all the four impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to surrender within two weeks from the date of passing of this order. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above are limited to examining the infirmities in the impugned orders and shall not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the matter which is still pending trial. It is also clarified that in the event of any new circumstances emerging, the respondents shall be entitled to apply for bail at a later stage.” 13. In case of Sanjay Kumar Jangid (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus: “16. The jurisprudence surrounding cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC is very clear as to that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to enjoy the concession of bail during the trial. The grounds for cancellation of bail as illustrated in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar and reiterated in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra broadly lay down the grounds on which a bail can be cancelled where (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 witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would 8 / 9 hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vii) 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. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It has also been echoed in various judgments that rejection of bail stands on a different platform as compared to cancellation of bail which is considered to be a harsh order as it interferes with the liberty of an individual. and hence, it must not be lightly resorted to. 17. A perusal of the record makes it apparent that even though multiple FIRs have been lodged against the co- accused persons after the appellants' release on ball, i.e. on 22.03.2022, the names of the instant appellants have not been mentioned in most of these FIRs, nor any allegation has been levied against the appellants. It is only in FIR No. 11/2023 dated 23.01.2023 under Sections 143. 332 and 353 of the IPC that the appellants have been named. However, even in the said offence, after due investigation, filed 10.07.2024, wherein the chargesheet was appellants were not charge-sheeted. Therefore, merely because subsequent FIRs have been registered against the other co-accused persons, it does not become a valid or fair ground to seize the liberty of bail that has been extended to the appellants herein. The exercise of cancellation of bail is a strict one, and needs to be executed in a restrictive manner, only when the circumstances demand for it. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the instant case is not a fit one to employ the provisions of cancellation of bail and curb the appellants' liberty.” 14. In view of entirety of facts and circumstances of case, submission of learned counsel for the parties as also decision in case of Sanjay 9 / 9 Kumar Jangid (supra) and further considering that all the material witnesses have now been examined before trial Court and there is no direct allegation against applicants by the complaint/witness in another crime registered on complaint of witness, I do not find any good ground to allow these criminal miscellaneous petitions and cancel bail granted to respective respondent. 15. Accordingly, both the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen