1 2026:CGHC:21223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1296 of 2026 Jyoti Gupta D/o Mr. Gyanchand Gupta Aged About 32 Years Currently Residing At 305, Jivan Niketan Society, Rajiv Nagar, Shankar Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Khamardih, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nikhil Chandrakar S/o Laxman Prasad Chandrakar Aged About 43 Years R/o- F-15, Avanti Vihar Sector 02 Khamardih, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent/State. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent No. 2 namely Nikhil Chandrakar, as he was enlarged on KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 bail by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 in MCRC No. 6030 of 2025. 3. The respondent Nos. 2 had preferred regular bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of bail, who had been arrested in connection with Crime No. 552/2024, registered at Police Station – Khamhardih, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant most respectfully submits that the present petition has been preferred seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 02, on the ground that he has grossly misused the liberty granted by this Court and has acted in a manner which seriously prejudices the fair administration of justice. It is submitted that the prosecution case originates from FIR No. 552/2024 registered at Police Station Khamardih, Raipur, wherein it is alleged that the respondent No. 02, along with co-accused persons, criminally conspired and unlawfully entered the house of the petitioner by using a duplicate key and breaking the lock, with the intention to destroy evidence pertaining to a prior serious offence, and in the process, stole important documents affecting the petitioner’s employment prospects, which incident is also supported by CCTV footage. 5. It is further submitted that although the respondent No. 02 was already in judicial custody in other serious offences, he was subsequently arrested in the present case and later enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 subject to 3 specific conditions, including that he shall not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with the trial. However, immediately after being released on bail, the respondent No. 02 has blatantly violated the conditions imposed by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 02 has continuously harassed and intimidated the petitioner and more particularly, her mother, who is a material witness in the present case. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has exerted undue pressure, extended threats and interfered in their personal lives with the sole intention of compelling them to withdraw from the case and enter into an unlawful settlement. The threats extended include serious consequences such as social defamation, departmental action, financial loss and even coercion relating to property, which clearly demonstrates a calculated attempt to influence the witness and derail the trial. It is further contended that the respondent No. 02 has misused statutory mechanisms, particularly by filing an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking personal and service-related details of the petitioner’s mother, despite having no lawful or legitimate interest in such information. The subsequent filing of a First Appeal further establishes his mala fide intention to harass and pressurize the material witness through indirect means. Learned counsel further submits that the continuous acts of intimidation compelled the petitioner’s mother to lodge written complaints before the concerned police authorities, clearly stating that she is being subjected to mental harassment, threats and coercion by the respondent No. 02. 4 Despite such complaints, the respondent No. 2 has persisted in his unlawful conduct, thereby demonstrating complete disregard for the conditions of bail and the authority of this Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner had initially approached the learned trial Court seeking cancellation of bail on account of these violations, however, the said application was not entertained and the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court. In light of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel submits that the conduct of the respondent No. 02 clearly falls within the well-settled parameters for cancellation of bail, inasmuch as he has: (i) misused the liberty granted to him, (ii) attempted to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses, and (iii) acted in a manner prejudicial to a fair and impartial trial. It is further submitted that there exists a strong and reasonable apprehension that if the respondent No.2 is allowed to remain on bail, he will continue to interfere with the course of justice. Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Court may be pleased to cancel the bail granted to respondent No. 02 in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that this Court has granted bail to the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 01.08.2025 in MCRC No. 6030/2025 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. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order of this Court granting bail to the accused/applicant. 5 9. 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: “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 circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. 10. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the regular bail was granted to respondent No. 02 vide order dated 01.08.2025 in MCRC No. 6030/2025 after due application of judicial mind and upon 6 consideration of the allegations and material placed before the Court at the time of hearing. The grounds now raised by the applicant are largely reiterative in nature and do not disclose any substantial supervening circumstance warranting interference with the said order. 11. This Court further finds that the allegations regarding intimidation and harassment of the petitioner’s mother, who is stated to be a material witness, are general in nature and are not supported by any independent material of such quality which would prima facie establish that the respondent No. 02 has misused the liberty granted to him or has interfered with the due course of trial. Mere filing of complaints, without any consequential action or corroborative material, cannot by itself be made the basis for cancellation of bail. 12. This Court also takes note of the contention regarding filing of an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by respondent No. 02 seeking certain information pertaining to the petitioner’s mother. In the considered opinion of this Court, invocation of a statutory remedy available under law, by itself, cannot be construed as misuse of liberty or an act amounting to interference with the administration of justice, particularly in the absence of any material to show that such information has been used to threaten or influence the witness. 13. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner is essentially seeking re-appreciation of the same set of facts and circumstances which were either available or could have been brought before the 7 Court at the time of grant of bail. It is settled law that bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a routine or mechanical manner unless there are clear and cogent allegations of misuse of liberty, violation of bail conditions, or interference with the trial, supported by credible material. 14. In the present case, no such material has been brought on record to demonstrate that respondent No. 02 has violated any specific condition of bail, attempted to tamper with evidence, or has acted in a manner so as to prejudice a fair trial. The allegations made are not sufÏcient to meet the stringent standard required for cancellation of bail. 15. In view of the aforesaid analysis and applying the settled principles of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 02. 16. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 17. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 18. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal