JUDGMENT : Arvind Kumar Verma, J. 1. The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 439 (2) of IPC seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2/accused vide order dated 03.08.2023 in Bail petition No. 2131/2023 granted by the learned First Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) (Annexure P/1). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with the other complainants has lodged the First Information Report against the Deepak Kumar Barad who is the CMD of Sai Trust Orissa and the said trust institution was facilitating for baby food and other social works for free. The respondent no. 2 allured the complainants in name of doubling their amount and providing them permanent job with fixed salary and appointed the petitioner as CG State Director at Delhi for receiving International Foreign Fund and by deceiving them has cheated an amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- (One Crore Thirty Five Lakhs). On the aforesaid description the FIR bearing No. 311/2023 was lodged by P.S. Tikrapara Raipur. The first bail application of respondent no.2 was rejected on 18/07/2023 looking into the gravity of offence, however later on the wife of accused Deepak i.e. Smt. Anjali Barad executed an agreement of compromise deed on 03/08/2023 stating that on 27/07/2023 a total of Rs.15 lakh were returned by RTGS and 3 cheques of Rs. 40-40 Thousand were given to the complainants and the copy of compromise deed was produced before the court. On 03/08/2023 the third bail application was filed with the aforesaid compromise deed and the relevant documents upon which the learned session court considered the change in circumstance and settlement between the parties and the promise to pay in near future the entire amount and has granted the regular bail in bail application no. 2131/2023 (???EXURE P/2). The general power of attorney executed between the other complainants and present petitioner on dated 22/07/2023. Looking into the act of the accused, the petitioner and the other complainants were forced to make an application for cancellation of bail before the court which has granted the bail. Upon such application the court below has rejected the application for cancellation of bail with a view that since the accused has a liability to return a big amount which need some time, therefore no occasion arise to cancel the earlier granted bail. ANNEXURE P/5. 3. Upon such application the court below has rejected the application for cancellation of bail with a view that since the accused has a liability to return a big amount which need some time, therefore no occasion arise to cancel the earlier granted bail. ANNEXURE P/5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date no amount as promised during the grant of bail has been paid back to the petitioner and other complainants which is a sheer violation and misuse of the liberty of bail. The aforesaid act shows the intention of the accused to violate the order by the court. The surprising fact is that till date no final report has been filed in pursuance of crime no. 311/2023 by P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur even after more than a year has been passed after the registration of crime. In the reply of respondent No. 2, it has been mentioned that the respondent No. 2 is ready to pay the entire remaining amount in three installments of Rs. 25,00,000/- on each respectively on or before 20.09.2024, 20.10.2024, 20.11.2024, however till date no amount has been paid by the respondent No. 2/accused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bail must be cancelled because the accused has not complied with the order of court while granting the bail as at that time accused has shown his willingness to return the entire amount of cheating which is Rs. 1,35,00,000/-. The accused has shown before the session court that he is interested in returning the amount, however soon after getting the liberty of bail he has shown through his act that he his not interested in complying with the settlement deed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court redefined the parameters that constitute "cogent and overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of bail as held in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 - * Evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abusing or attempt to abuse the concession of bail granted * Possibility of the accused to abscond * Development of supervening circumstances impeding upon the principles of fair trial; The link between the gravity of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the societal impact on the Court's interference. 5. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the Court further discussed the impact of supervening circumstances arising post the grant of bail, including interference in the administration of justice and the abuse of the bail concession. Such circumstances are deemed detrimental to a fair trial and can justify the cancellation of bail, as articulated in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab (2021) 15 SCC 518. Looking in to the act of the respondent no. 2 and the conduct of the Investigating authorities, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly cancel the bail granted to respondent no. 2 and send him back to the custody. In the matter of Afzal Khan vs. State of Gujarat , AIR 2007 SC 2111 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that a bail order passed by the court must be reasoned one but detailed reasons touching merits of the case. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/accused persons would support the impugned order and would submit that the order passed by the ASJ requires no interference by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. On the issue with regard to rejection of bail and cancellation of bail already granted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 , has held in para 4, which reads as under:- “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 dealth 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. 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 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hazari Lal Das Vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 652 held in para 7, which reads thus:- “7. There is nothing on record that there has been interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice by the appellant. It also does not appear from the record that the concession granted to him has been abused in any manner. No supervening circumstances have surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting the anticipatory bail has been interfered with by the High Court in the absence of cogent and convincing circumstances. We are, thus, satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained.” 10.In the case of Abdul Basit Versus Md. Abdul Kadir Choudhury (2015) 1 SCC 257 misrepresented the fact for obtaining the order of bail, the High Court should not have entertained the prayer for cancellation of bail by making reviewing earlier order of grant of bail. 11.The scope of interference under Section 439(2) of CrPC is limited and circumscribed. It is well settled that cancellation of bail cannot be ordered merely because the Court, on a reappraisal of the material, may take a different view from that taken at the time of grant of bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances such as misuse of liberty, attempt to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, absconding, or interference with the due course of justice must be shown to exist subsequent to the grant of bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances such as misuse of liberty, attempt to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, absconding, or interference with the due course of justice must be shown to exist subsequent to the grant of bail. The law in this regard has been succinctly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 . 12.In the present case, the principal ground urged by the petitioner for cancellation of bail is that the respondent No.2/accused has failed to repay the remaining amount allegedly promised at the time of grant of bail. However, on a careful perusal of the bail order dated 03.08.2023, this Court finds that the learned Sessions Court has not imposed any specific or time-bound condition directing the accused to deposit or repay the entire amount as a condition precedent for continuation of bail. The observations made regarding settlement and repayment were only one of the factors considered while granting bail and cannot be construed as a mandatory enforceable condition. 13.Mere non-fulfilment of an assurance or delay in repayment of a disputed amount, by itself, does not ipso facto amount to misuse of liberty so as to attract cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of CrPC. The remedy for enforcement of a compromise or recovery of money lies in appropriate civil or other legal proceedings and not through the extraordinary remedy of cancellation of bail, unless it is shown that the accused has acted in a manner prejudicial to a fair trial. 14.Significantly, the petitioner has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that after being released on bail, the respondent No.2 has attempted to influence or threaten the complainants or witnesses, tampered with evidence, or evaded the process of law. There is also no allegation that the accused has violated any express condition imposed by the bail order or that he has failed to cooperate with the investigation. 15.The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab (2021) 15 SCC 518 is misconceived in the facts of the present case, as no supervening circumstance affecting the administration of justice or fairness of trial has been established. 15.The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab (2021) 15 SCC 518 is misconceived in the facts of the present case, as no supervening circumstance affecting the administration of justice or fairness of trial has been established. Likewise, the judgment in Afzal Khan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2007 SC 2111 , does not advance the case of the petitioner, as the bail order in question reflects due consideration of relevant factors and cannot be said to be perverse or passed without application of mind. 16.This Court is conscious of the seriousness of the allegations and the amount involved; however, gravity of offence alone cannot be a determinative factor for cancellation of bail once the accused has been granted liberty by a reasoned order and no subsequent misuse of such liberty is shown. 17.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any cogent or overwhelming circumstance warranting cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of CrPC. The application is essentially founded on non-payment of money, which, in the absence of violation of any specific bail condition or interference with the course of justice, cannot be a valid ground for cancellation of bail. 18.Accordingly, the application filed under Section 439(2) of CrPC is dismissed 19.However, it is made clear that dismissal of the present application shall not preclude the petitioner and other complainants from availing appropriate remedies available to them in accordance with law.