1 / 2 2025:CGHC:1316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 262 of 202 3 • Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Shri N.L. Jain Aged About 75 Years R/o VIP Colony, Near State Bank Of India Branch Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. R.N. Tiwari S/o Late S.P. Tiwari Aged About 62 Years R/o Gulab Nagar Mopka, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent-State For Respondent No. 2 : : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judg e ORDER ON BOARD 08/01/2025 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed by petitioner under Section 439(2) of CrPC read with Section 482 of CrPC for cancellation of order of bail dated 04.10.2021 passed in MCRCA No. 943/2021, whereby Respondent No. 2 was enlarged on anticipatory bail. 2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that during course of arguments on the bail application, learned counsel representing Respondent No. 2/ applicant therein had made submission that the amount of Rs. 54 Lakh and 3 Lakh has been returned back to complainant and Respondent No. 2/ applicant therein is willing to return back the balance amount at the earliest. He contended that based on the said submission this Court granted anticipatory bail to PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 Respondent No. 2. However, after release on bail he is not returning back the balance amount of Rs. 10 Lakh and hence there is violation of conditions imposed granting bail, therefore, the order of bail of Respondent No. 2 be cancelled. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that even today Respondent No. 2 is willing to return back the balance amount, however, looking to the financial constraint, he is unable to repay the balance amount to applicant. She submits that even as on date Respondent No. 2 is willing to return back the balance amount and as soon as funds are available the amount will be returned back to applicant. She contended that in the order of bail, no such condition is imposed that the Respondent No. 2/ applicant therein shall have to return back the balance amount within specific time frame. The ground raised is not sufficient to pass an order of cancellation of order of bail which is passed by this Court considering the merits of the case. 4. Learned State counsel also opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, provision under Section 439(2) of CrPC, I do not find any good ground to allow this petition and cancel the order of bail granted to Respondent No. 2. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE