1 2026:CGHC:15550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 940 of 2026 Purnima Yadav D/o Bartiya Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Kumhari, P.S. Gidhauri (Tundra), Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Gidhauri (Tundra), Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Lt. Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kumhari, P.S. Gidhauri, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Deep Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Akash Deep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Ritika Verma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent/State. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 namely Rajesh Kumar Sahu, as he was enlarged on anticipatory bail by order dated 31.07.2025 in MCRCA No. 1165 of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2025. 3. The respondent Nos. 2 had preferred anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No. 116/2025, registered at Police Station – Gidhouri (Tundra), District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the present case arises out of a well-planned act of cheating and fraud committed by respondent No. 02/accused, Rajesh Kumar Sahu, who took undue advantage of the petitioner’s illiteracy and induced her to enter into an agreement for sale of her land admeasuring 0.068 hectares situated at Village Kumhari for a total sale consideration of Rs. 57,60,000/-. It is submitted that initially an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid as advance and at the time of execution of the sale deed, the respondent No.2 issued two cheques, one amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- and another for Rs. 46,60,000/-. While the first cheque was duly encashed by the petitioner and the second cheque was dishonoured due to mismatch of signature and insufficiency of funds in the account of the respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2, with a dishonest intention from the very inception, deliberately did not disclose the actual agreed sale consideration in the sale deed and thereby cheated the petitioner of a substantial amount of Rs. 46,60,000/-, leading to registration of FIR bearing Crime No. 116/2025 at Police Station Gidhauri (Tundra) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3 5. Learned counsel further submits that after registration of the FIR, the respondent No.2 initially approached the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected on merits vide order dated 22.05.2025. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 approached this Court by filing MCRCA No. 1165/2025 and succeeded in obtaining anticipatory bail vide order dated 31.07.2025. It is specifically contended that while seeking such relief, the respondent No.2 made a false and misleading submission before this Court to the effect that the cheque in question had been lost and that he had already lodged a report with the concerned police station regarding such loss, and even annexed a purported document in support of the said contention. It is submitted that this representation made by the respondent No.2 was a material factor which weighed with this Court while granting the benefit of anticipatory bail. He further submits that the petitioner, upon becoming aware of the said false claim, took steps to verify the authenticity of such submission by filing an application under the Right to Information Act before Police Station Gidhauri (Tundra), specifically seeking details of any report allegedly lodged by the respondent No.2 on 07.03.2025 regarding loss of cheque bearing No. 286695. In response thereto, the concerned police station, vide its reply dated 30.11.2025, categorically informed that upon verification of the Sanha (daily diary) register for the said date, no such report was found to have been recorded. Thus, it stands conclusively established that the respondent No.2 had never lodged any report regarding loss of the cheque and the document relied upon by him before this Court was false and fabricated. It is therefore submitted that the respondent No.2 has deliberately misled 4 this Court by making false statements and suppressing material facts with the sole intention of securing anticipatory bail, which he would not have otherwise been entitled to. Such conduct clearly reflects abuse of the process of law and lack of bona fides on the part of the respondent No.2. He further contends that it is a settled principle of law that any order obtained by playing fraud upon the Court or by misrepresentation of material facts is liable to be set aside and the benefit granted on such basis cannot be allowed to continue. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the very foundation on which anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent No.2 stands vitiated and therefore, in the interest of justice, fair investigation and to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings, the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 02 vide order dated 31.07.2025 deserves to be cancelled. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondents No. 2 vide order dated 31.07.2025 in MCRCA No. 1165/2025 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. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused person dated 31.07.2025 in MCRCA No. 1165/2025. 8. 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 5 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. 9. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the anticipatory bail was granted to respondent No. 02 after due application of judicial mind and upon consideration of all relevant facts placed before the Court at the time of hearing. It is evident from the record that the respondent No.2 had specifically taken a stand that the cheque in question had been lost and that prior to initiation of criminal proceedings, he had already 6 submitted a complaint before the concerned police station intimating about such loss, which was duly received at the police station. The said document was placed on record along with the anticipatory bail application and was taken into consideration by this Court while granting relief. 10. This Court further finds that the contention now raised by the applicant/complainant on the basis of information obtained under the RTI Act, to the effect that no “report” regarding loss of cheque was found recorded in the Sanha register, does not conclusively disprove the stand taken by the respondent No.2 at the time of grant of anticipatory bail. There exists a clear distinction between a formal report/FIR entered in the station diary (Sanha) and a complaint/ intimation submitted before the police authorities. Merely because no entry is reflected in the Sanha register does not ipso facto negate the existence or submission of a complaint by the respondent No.2, particularly when the document indicating such submission and its receipt was already placed on record and considered by this Court. 11. In the considered view of this Court, the applicant/complainant cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same issue by drawing a technical distinction in terminology between a “report” and a “complaint”, especially when the foundational fact remains that the respondent No.2 had brought to the notice of the authorities regarding the alleged loss of cheque prior to the dispute and the same formed part of the record at the time of grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, it cannot be held that the respondent No.2 had deliberately made any false statement or misled this Court so as to vitiate the order granting anticipatory bail. 7 12. It is well settled that cancellation of anticipatory bail is a serious matter and can only be ordered upon existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances such as misuse of liberty, violation of bail conditions, interference with investigation, or any act prejudicial to fair trial. In the present case, no material has been brought on record to show that respondent No. 02 has misused the liberty granted to him or has violated any of the conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail. 13. Furthermore, it is also a settled principle that once bail has been granted, the same should not be cancelled in a routine or mechanical manner on re-appreciation of the same material or on hyper-technical grounds. The present petition is primarily based on a reinterpretation of the same facts which were already available and considered at the time of grant of anticipatory bail and does not disclose any supervening circumstance warranting interference. 14. In view of the aforesaid analysis and applying the settled principles of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 02. 15. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal