Khyati Vishwakarma W/o Jitendra Soni Aged About 24 Years R/o Kachharipara Ward No. 12 v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Kawardha
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5156 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 352 of 2025 Khyati Vishwakarma W/o Jitendra Soni Aged About 24 Years R/o Kachharipara Ward No. 12 Kawardha Police Station Kawardha District - Kabirdham (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Kawardha (C.G.) District Kabirdham - 2 - Jitendra Soni S/o Shivendra Soni Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Ram Nagar Kawardha Police Station And Tehsil Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Ku. Kajal Soni D/o Shivendra Soni Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 1 Ram Nagar Kawardha Police Station And Tehsil Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) (Accused Persons) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 29.01.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the non- compliance of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) on 14.01.2025 by the respondents no. 2 and 3. 2 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that the complainant lodged a report in Police Station Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) on 06.01.2025 against the respondent no. 2 and 3 along with three other accused persons alleging inter-alia that she was having love relationship with respondent no. 2 since last three to four years and during the aforesaid period the respondent no. 2 made physical relationship with her on pretext of marriage, but when he refused to marry her on 01.09.2023, a report was lodged against him commission of rape by the complainant which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. During the pendency of the trial, the respondent no. 2 performed marriage with the applicant on 18.12.2023 and subsequently in the month of October, 2024 the respondent no. 2 declared acquitted from the rape case and just after the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the private respondents along with their family members started cruelty against the petitioner for demand of motorcycle, i-phone and cash amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- and she was subjected to cruelty and threatened also to cause death and thereafter, she was thrown out of the house. Thereafter, she preferred an application before the Station House Officer which was sent to In- charge of Woman Cell, Kawardha, District-Kabridham (C.G.) for counseling where the respondent no. 2 refused to keep the petitioner with him. On the basis of report lodged by petitioner, the police registered an offence bearing crime no. 09/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 85, 395) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on 06.01.2025. 3 3. Respondent no. 2 and 3 preferred an application under Section 482 oF BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail as they were apprehending their arrest in connection with crime no. 9/2025 for the offence punishable under the said sections of BNSS, 2023, which was allowed vide order dated 14.01.2025, bail was granted and several conditions were imposed which were mandatory in nature. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in his submission stated that the nature and gravity of the offence has not been appreciated properly by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) therefore, he pleads to allow this application and further pleads to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 09/2025 pending before Police Station- Kawardha, District- Kabirdham C.G. for investigation in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the above contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. 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 4 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 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. 8. 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 5 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.” 9. On perusal of record,it reveals that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kawardha has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case while granting the bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, pleadings made in the petition and the aforementioned principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of cancellation of bail, this Court finds no good ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2 and 3. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. sssdsd/- Sd/- Alfiza (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge