1 2026:CGHC:14163 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2859 of 2025 1 - Satyanarayan Soni S/o Late Motilal Soni Aged About 57 Years R/o Near Durga Mandir, Sadar Bazar Durg, P.S. Kotwali Durg,dist- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Tarun Soni S/o Anandram Soni Aged About 33 Years (Accused) R/o Nayapara Shankar Chowk, Raipur P.S. Gol Bazar, Raipur Dist Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Dani, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 19 /03/2026 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 483 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent No. 1 in M.Cr.C. No. 3208/2024 vide order dated 04.07.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has only considered that out of 33 enlisted witnesses, only 08 witnesses have been examined till June, 2024 besides other consideration like period of detention etc. and have granted bail in a mechanical manner. He further 2 submits that release of the Respondent No. 1 on bail caused miscarriage of justice. In the charge-sheet submitted by the police after investigation along with Section 302/201 of the IPC, 1860, Sections 34 and and 120B of the IPC were also added. Death of a married girl in the in-laws house is a serious crime and therefore, granting bail in such circumstances, bail has to be granted by reasoned order. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 would oppose the submission made by the counsel for petitioner and would submit that this Court while hearing the application for grant of bail on 04.07.2024 has considered the arguments of the parties at length and have considered the material placed on record before this Court and only thereafter, the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 was passed. It is also the contention of counsel for petitioner that the Court based on the argument raised by the applicant and the copy of the deposition sheets placed, submitting that the post- mortem report is doubtful has allowed the application for grant of bail. Petitioner if, is aggrieved with the order of grant of bail, then could have approached the higher forum seeking cancellation of bail. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Abhishek Banchhor Vs. Atul Shrivastava & Anr. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine Chh 4662. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2/State supports the order dated 04.07.2024 for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents and order dated 04.07.2024 placed on record. 6. Perusal of para 3 of the order passed by this Court on 04.07.2024 granting regular bail to the Respondent No. 1 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would show that the counsel for applicant therein had made submission that the opinion given by the 3 Doctor in his post-mortem appears to be suspicious. It is further mentioned that the applicant is in jail since 24.03.2023. 7. From further perusal of the order, it is apparent that along with the application for grant of bail, applicant therein has also filed the deposition of the Doctor. This Court while considering the submission made by the counsel for respective parties in the bail application for grant of bail have recorded that based on the submissions made by the counsel for respective parties, period of pre-trial detention and the witnesses remaining to be examined, has allowed the application. This Court has not discussed in detail the reasons for grant of bail, with a view that it may cause prejudice to the parties or it may have bearing on merits of the case at the time of final decision of the case pending before the Trial Court and therefore, detailed discussion on merits was avoided. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 has observed thus:- “4. Rejection of 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 bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it 4 decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.” 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the above referred decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to allow this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and grant the relief of cancellation of bail as sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. 10.Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY