1 CGHC010288752026 2026:CGHC:33167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1998 of 2026 ABC ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer. Of Police Station Sakri, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajendra Tandon Alias Rinku Tandon Aged Bout 32 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Sai Nagar, Uslapur, P.S. Sakri, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents/State. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the regular bail granted to the respondent No. 2 - Rajendra Tandon Alias Rinku Tandon, as he was enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2026 in MCRC No. 3364/2026. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The respondent No.2 had preferred the First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he had been arrested in connection with Crime No. 40/2026, registered at Police Station – Sakri, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(1), 74, 296. 351(3), 333 and 324(1) of the BNS. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 after being granted bail by this Court, has again started threatening the complainant to take back the case, and therefore, on 12.05.2026, a complaint has also been lodged by the complainant against the respondent No.2 before the Station House Officer, Police Station – Sakri, District – Bilaspur (C.G.). It is also submitted that there are a total of 14 prosecution witnesses but no single witness has been examined by the trial Court till date, therefore, the regular bail granted to the respondent No. 2, be cancelled. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that this Court has granted regular bail to the respondent No.2/accused vide order dated 15.04.2026 in MCRC No. 3364/2026, 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 order of this Court granting regular bail to the accused person dated 15.04.2026 in MCRC No. 3364/2026. 7. From the perusal of entire records of this petition and the documents 3 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: “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 respondent No.2 is trying to tamper with the evidence or are creating obstructions in fair and impartial trial so as to create a very cogent and overwhelming situation for cancellation of bail. 9. Furthermore, the regular bail granted can only be canceled when (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) 4 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 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 regular bail to the respondent No.2, and after the regular bail being granted to the respondent No.2 on 15.04.2026, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for cancelling the bail appears to be an afterthought to get the bail of the respondent No.2 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 regular bail to the respondent No.2/accused is refused, and resultantly the instant CRMP is hereby disposed of. 12. 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 six months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no any 5 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