Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2822 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 559 of 2018 Smt. Padmani Sen W/o Late Shri Sevakram Sen Aged About 29 Years R/o Quarter No. 3/2, Purana Police Line, Thana Kotwali, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2. Chimenjee Stenalee Chukowa, aged about 25 years, S/o Chukowa Stenlee, at present Address of C/51, Patel Garden, Gali No. 07, Kakrol, Delhi, permanent address Chidi Street, Aoveri, Nigeria. ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
respondent No. 2 is a foreigner with prima facie evidence against him, granted bail to respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 01.02.2018. This bail order was obtained by suppressing material facts from the learned Session Court. As Respondent No. 2 is a foreigner residing in India without a valid visa, if released, he may commit another crime and be difÏcult to track, as he frequently changes his address. He also contended that respondent No. 2's intentions are against human conduct, and his actions may physically harm the petitioner at any time, therefore, the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, is liable to be set- aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/State opposed the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. He submitted that it is an admitted fact that a Nigerian citizen came to India for studies but lost interest and focused on making quick money. He befriended the complainant, established a friendship, 4 and coerced her into transferring Rs. 46,500/- to someone else's account. He also submitted that the accused was willing to accept Court conditions, including surrendering his visa and passport. He has been in judicial custody since November 20, 2017. Learned State counsel further stated that based on these conditions, the trial Court granted regular bail to respondent No. 2, which appears to be a sound decision. Therefore, the petition is completely frivolous and deserves to be rejected. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of granting regular bail to respondent No. 02 by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 01.02.2018 in Bail application No. 53/2018. 9. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in case of Savitri Agarwal and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 325, has reiterated the earlier principles laid down in Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 and observed that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail has to be considered or dealt with on different basis. It is settled principle that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. 5 10. 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 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. 11. Furthermore, the regular bail granted can only be canceled 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 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. 12. Considering the fact that the trial Court granted regular bail to respondent No. 2 after meticulously examining the entire record and imposing specific conditions, and that respondent No. 2 fulfilled those conditions, the trial court's decision to grant regular bail was duly justified, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2 by the trial Court. However, the matter pertains to the year 2017 and the trial is 6 still pending today, therefore, the trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, if already not concluded. 13. With the aforesaid observation / direction, this petition stands
Arguments
: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.01.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Bharat Gulbani, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No. 01/State. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the regular bail granted to 2 the respondent No. 2 – Chimenjee Stenalee Chukowa, as he was enlarged on regular bail by learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 01.02.2018 in Bail application No. 53/2018. 3. The petitioner had preferred regular bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., as he had arrested in connection with Crime No. 255/17 registered at Police Station Aarakshi Kendra, Kotwali, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 384, 201, 509B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66 (C)(D) of the Information Technology Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2, with the criminal intent to cheat the petitioner, established a Facebook friendship with her. Subsequently, the petitioner received a call stating that the caller was an ofÏcer from London and that a parcel had arrived, requiring payment of certain charges/taxes. The petitioner then received a threatening message, stating that if the amount was not deposited, nude photos would be uploaded. Fearing this, the petitioner deposited Rs. 46,500/- into the account number provided. He further submits that a report was lodged, and upon investigation by the Cyber Cell, it was discovered that respondent No. 2 had committed the crime. Respondent No. 2 is a foreigner with no authority to stay in India, as his visa had expired, thereby committing an offense under visa provisions. Respondent No. 2 impersonated someone else, extracted money from the petitoner, and threatened her life. He suppressed material facts from the Court and did not come with clean hands. 5. He further submits that respondent No. 02 had by impersonate had 3 extract money from the petitioner and further had also threaten the petitioner to her life. He also submits that respondent No. 02 had suppress many thing from the Court had not come with clean hands. He also submits that despite the petitioner being cheated by respondent No. 2, the police did not register any offense under the Indian Penal Code or IT Act. 6. He further contended that the learned Session Court, without considering the facts that the petitioner was cheated and
Decision
disposed of. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.20 15:44:10 +0530