1 2026:CGHC:252 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3830 of 2025 Ankit Singh (In Person) S/o Mahendra Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Gevra Project, Police Station Dipka, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3. Superintendent Of Police District Korba Chhattisgarh 4. Station House OfÏcer Police Station Dipka, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Petitioner in Person. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 05.01.2026 1. This petition has been filled for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the Accused - Deepak @ Ambedkar Tandan by this Court on 07.02.2022 in MCRCA No.18/2022 in connection with Crime No.160/2020 registered at Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.01.06 10:41:46 +0530 2 Police Station Deepka, District Korba for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. 2. Mr. Ankit Singh, Petitioner-in-person submits that he is son of complainant Mahendra Singh who is paralysis patient and is unable to attend the Court himself. He submits that accused Deepak has cheated the complainant, due to which, complainant suffered loss of Rs.27,90,000/-. He submits that with the intervention of concerned Station House OfÏcer, settlement was arrived at between the parties and accused has promised to pay Rs.5 Lacs, however, no such amount has been transferred in the account of the complainant till date. He also submits that while granting the anticipatory bail, a condition was enumerated that accused will not involve in similar nature of offence, however, certain cases are registered against him at Police Station Sakti as well as at Police Station Raipur. He also submits that accused always remain absent on the dates given by the trial Court and thereby he has outrightly flouted the condition (d) of anticipatory bail and in consequence arrest warrant has been issued against him. In view of such submission, he prays to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that as per submission of the petitioner, for breaching the bail conditions, an arrest warrant has already been issued against the accused. So the trial Court has already taken suitable steps in accordance with law by issuing arrest warrant. Learned State counsel also brought to notice of this Court that the accused has not been arrayed as a party in this petition. 4. Heard Petitioner-in-person and learned State counsel and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 3 5. In catena of decisions, distinction has been made between rejection of bail in a non bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. On the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dolatram Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, it has been observed that rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted have to be considered and dealt with on different basis and following was observed in Paragraph 4:- "4. Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of the bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion of attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.” 6. In light of the aforesaid principle and considering the submission of petitioner himself that concerned trial Court has taken steps by issuing arrest warrant for flouting condition of anticipatory bail and also considering the backdrop of the case, this Court is of the view that no strong is case is made out for cancellation of anticipatory bail already granted to the accused. 7. Accordingly, this CrMP being bereft of any merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay