1 CGHC010239482026 2026:CGHC:27686 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1723 of 2026 Vineet Jain S/o Kamal Chand Jain Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 736, Barun Kunj, Avanti Vihar Extension, Ravigram, Ward No. 28, Telibandha, Ravigram, Bindrawangagarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-In-Charge, Police Station Civil Lines, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vaishnav Tandi S/o Pandav Tandi Aged About 40 Years R/o Garba Maidan, Samta Colony, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Rupnath Sahu S/o Radheshyam Sahu Aged About 64 Years R/o Bazar Chowk Ward No. 13, Village Kolar P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Muskaan Fatwani, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. Heard Ms. Muskaan Fatwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents/State. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 and 3 - Vaishnav Tandi and Rupnath Sahu, as he was enlarged on anticipatory bail by an orders dated 15.04.2026 and 07.05.2026 in MCRCA Nos. 547/2026 and 685/2026. 3. The respondent No.2 and 3 had preferred anticipatory Bail Applications under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No. 192/2026, registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite obtaining anticipatory bail on the categorical assertion that the respondents No.2 and 3 were ready and willing to execute the sale deed, till date nor refunded the amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- admittedly received from the petitioner. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, be cancelled. 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 this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2 and 3/accused vide orders dated 15.04.2026 and 07.05.2026 in MCRCA Nos. 547/2026 and 685/2026, 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. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the orders of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused person dated 15.04.2026 and 07.05.2026 in MCRCA Nos. 547/2026 and 685/2026. 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: 3 “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 respondents No. 2 and 3 are 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. 9. Furthermore, the anticipatory bail granted can only be cancelled 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 4 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 this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, and after the anticipatory bail being granted to the respondents No. 2 and 3 on 15.04.2026 and 07.05.2026, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for cancelling the bail appears to be an afterthought to get the anticipatory bail of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 cancelled, 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 anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused is refused, and resultantly the instant CRMP is hereby rejected. 12. Moreover, the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and make efforts to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, if there is no any legal impediment. 13. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar