1 2025:CGHC:9641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 704 of 2025 Shiva Vaishnav S/o Shri Lakhan Vaishnav Aged About 26 Years R/o Azad Chowk Balodabazar P.S. Kotwali District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (CG) (Complainant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Prosecution) 2 - Rishi Shukla S/o Late Siddhnath Shukla Aged About 43 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Accused) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manas Vajpai, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manas Vajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Amit Verma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents/State. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the regular bail granted to the respondent No. 2 – Rishi Shukla, as he was enlarged on regular bail by PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 an order dated 31.01.2025 in MCRC No. 906 of 2025. 3. The applicant had preferred a Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagark Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, in connection with Crime No.69/2025, registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2/accused has again after being granted regular bail by this Court, has threatened directly and indirectly to the complainant and his family members, the accused through his brother is putting pressure upon the complainant and his family members for withdrawal of complaint and for turning hostile in trial. Therefore, the regular bail granted to the respondent No. 2 should be canceled. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State vehemently opposes the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the accused is suffering from disability and he was disabled by birth, in this regard the office of the Chief Medical Health Officer, Balodabazar had already issue him a unique disability identity card certifying his 80% disability and he had no criminal antecedents, on which ground this Court has granted regular bail to the respondent No.2 vide order dated 31.01.2025 in MCRC No. 906 of 2025, and there appears to be no any infirmity while passing the same. Therefore, the application is completely frivolous and deserves to be rejected. 3 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order of this Court granting regular bail to the accused persons dated 31.01.2025 in MCRC No. 906 of 2025. 7. From the 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: “Suffice 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 circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. 8. In the instant case, from the perusal of documents it transpires that the pleadings are not supported with a minimum proof that the respondent No.2 is trying to tamper with the evidence or are creating obstructions 4 in fair & impartial trial so as to create a very cogent and overwhelming situation for cancellation of bail. 9. Furthermore, the regular bail granted can only be canceled when (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 hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) 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. It is also well settled that even if two views are possible, once the bail has been granted, it should not be cancelled. In facts of this case nowhere suggest that any of the aforesaid condition exists in the instance case, therefore, the principles laid down as above shall squarely apply in the instant case. 10. Considering the same and applying the aforesaid principles, in the considered view of this Court, no case is made out for cancellation of bail or review or recall the order, it transpires from the record that the accused is suffering from disability and he was disabled by birth, in this regard the office of the Chief Medical Health Officer, Balodabazar had already issue him a unique disability identity card certifying his 80% disability and he had no criminal antecedents, and after the regular bail being granted to the respondent No.2 by this Court on 31.01.2025, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for cancelling the bail appears to be afterthought to get the regular bail of the applicant cancelled, and further the counsel for the applicant was heard by this 5 Court while allowing the MCRC No. 906/2025 vide order dated 31.01.2025 on behalf of the accused/respondent No.2, therefore I do not find any good ground made out for consideration of the same. 11. In view of the above, prayer for cancellation of the order passed by this Court granting regular bail to the respondent No.2/accused, is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 12. However, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti