1 2026:CGHC:1441 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 57 of 2026 ABC (Details of Victim in a Closed Envelope) ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Frezerpur Parpa, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2. Pravin Kumar Das S/o Late Somaru Das Aged About 38 Years R/o Gudipara Parpa, Tokapal, P.S. Parpa District – Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.01.2026 1. The present petition is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 – Pravin Kumar Das, as he was enlarged on anticipatory bail by an order dated 06.11.2025 in MCRCA No. 1617/2025. 2. The petitioner had preferred an anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.196/2025, registered at Police Station- Parpa, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(M) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.13 10:26:41 +0530 2 (POCSO) Act, 2012. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2/accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, as a result, the accused/respondent No.2 has repeatedly threatened, intimidated and pressurized the petitioner for withdrawing the case and alter her statement. He further submits that the victim’s statement has also been recorded. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 should be canceled. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/State vehemently opposes the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.11.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 1617 of 2025, on the ground that the victim and the present applicant were in consensual relationship since the year 2016. Subsequently, when their relationship could not materialize into marriage, the present FIR came to be lodged by the victim on the ground that the applicant refused to marry her, and there appears to be no any infirmity while passing the same. Therefore, the application is completely frivolous and deserves to be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons dated 06.11.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 1617 of 2025. 6. 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 3 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. 7. 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 in fair & impartial trial so as to create a very cogent and overwhelming situation for cancellation of bail. 8. Furthermore, the anticipatory 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 4 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. 9. 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/respondent No.2 has repeatedly threatened, intimidated and pressurized the petitioner for withdrawing the case and alter her statement, further the victim’s statement has been recorded, and after the anticipatory bail being granted to the respondent No.2 by this Court on 06.11.2025, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for cancelling the bail appears to be afterthought to get the anticipatory bail of the petitioner cancelled, therefore, I do not find any good ground made out for consideration of the same. 10. In view of the above, prayer for cancellation of the order passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2/accused, is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 11. Moreover, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and make efforts to conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no any legal impediment. 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti