1 2025:CGHC:52983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3266 of 2025 Vishal Manon S/o Mani Manon Aged About 28 Years R/o Dhacha Bhawan, E.W.U.S Kurud, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Jamul, District OfÏce Durg (C.G.) 3 - S. Tushar Chaudhary S/o Senapati Jivan Rao Aged About 28 Years R/o Block No. 9 Quarter No. 144 Dalit Complex Housing Board Kailash Nagar Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Hemlata Chaudhary W/o Jeevan Rao Aged About 49 Years R/o Block No. 9 Quarter No. 144 Dalit Complex Housing Board Kailash Nagar Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Uttara Dewangan, Advocate (through V.C.) For Respondents/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 30.10.2025 1. Heard Ms. Uttara Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Ankita Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents/State. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 3 and 4 – namely S. Tushar Chaudhary and Hemlata Chaudhary, as they were enlarged on anticipatory bail by order dated 21.02.2025 and 13.01.2025 in MCRCA Nos. 260/2025 and 46/2025 respectively. 3. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had preferred anticipatory Bail Applications under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime Nos. 468/2024 and 333/2024 respectively, both registered at Police Station – Jamul, District-Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 is illegal and unjustified in view of the supervening circumstances that have arisen during the course of investigation. It is submitted that the said respondents were initially granted anticipatory bail for the offence under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is punishable up to seven years, on the basis of the allegation of abetment to suicide of the deceased, Ankita Menon. However, after the completion of investigation, the nature of the offence has been altered to Section 302 IPC, which is a non-bailable and far graver 3 offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, as the police investigation report and post-mortem report clearly reveal that the death of the deceased was homicidal and not suicidal. Therefore, the continuation of bail granted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 seriously prejudices the administration of justice, as their liberty poses a grave risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or absconding, given the severity of the offence under Section 302 IPC. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sagheer Khan, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 226, wherein it has been held that bail can be cancelled when there are supervening circumstances or when the allegations escalate to a graver offence. She further submitted that the petitioner, Vishal Menon, being the brother of the deceased victim, is an aggrieved person and is legally competent to seek cancellation of bail, as recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it was held that the aggrieved party has a right to pursue justice in cases involving heinous offences such as murder under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to them deserves to be cancelled in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State opposes the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondents No. 3/accused and 4/accused vide order dated 21.02.2025 and 13.01.2025 respectively in MCRCA Nos. 4 260/2025 and 46/2025 respectively, and there appears to be no any infirmity and jurisdictional error while passing the same. Therefore, the application is completely frivolous and deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons. 7. From perusal of entire records of this petition and the documents do not suggest that the petitioner is able to project any valid reason for cancellation of bail with respect to the touchstone of principle laid down by the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 861/2025 [Kailash Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.] while setting aside a High Court ruling cancelling bail of an accused, has observed here as under: “SufÏce to observe, liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered. We are satisfied that there was no valid reason for the High Court to cancel the bail without there being any material to show, even prima facie, that conduct of the appellant post grant of bail has been such that he should be deprived of his liberty. There are also no allegations of influence being exerted or threat extended to the witnesses or of tampering the evidence. Material to demonstrate that dilatory tactics have been adopted to procrastinate the trial is also conspicuous by its absence.,” It is settled principle that very cogent and overwhelming 5 circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the present petition has been filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by this Court vide orders dated 21.02.2025 and 13.01.2025 in MCRCA Nos. 260/2025 and 46/2025 respectively, for the offence under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The primary contention advanced by the petitioner is that, subsequent to the grant of bail, the investigating agency has altered the nature of the offence to Section 302 IPC, as the death of the deceased was found to be homicidal in nature. However, on careful consideration, it is apparent that on the date when anticipatory bail was granted, the FIR was registered only under Sections 306/34 IPC and no charge-sheet had been filed. This Court, while granting anticipatory bail, had exercised its discretion on the basis of the material then available on record. The subsequent alteration of the offence to Section 302 IPC during the course of investigation, by itself, does not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of bail, unless there are specific allegations or cogent material to indicate that the accused persons have misused the liberty granted to them, tampered with evidence, influenced witnesses, or evaded the process of law. In the absence of any such material or allegation of misconduct post grant of bail, mere addition of a graver section cannot be a determinative factor for recalling or cancelling the bail order already passed in due exercise 6 of judicial discretion. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for cancellation of bail or review or recall the order and as such, this application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondents No 3 and 4, is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal