High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.04.11 18:53:26 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1045 of 2025 NAFR 1 - Manoj Pandey @ Brijbhal S/o Shri Sabhajit Pandey Aged About 53 Years R/o Sai Mandir Road, Mahadev Ghat, Raipur, Police Station- D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - Amit Jayaswal S/o Late Shri Gyan Prakash Jayaswal Aged About 39 Years R/o Kasba, Mowa, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Pandri District- Raipur (C.G) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent No.1 For State : : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate. Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 09.04. 202 5 1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (in short, SC & ST Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.98/2024 whereby the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is an accused in the 2 offence of Crime No.172/2023 registered at Police Station, Pandri, Raipur, for the offence under Section 384 IPC. The said FIR was registered on 02.06.2023 on the complaint made by the complainant Amit Jaiswal in which the date of incident is alleged to have been in between 01.03.2023 tot 31.05.2023. On the basis of said FIR the petitioner was arrested on 02.06.2023 and he was released on anticipatory bail by the trial court vide its order dated 09.06.2023 passed in bail petition No.1539 of 2023. 3. On 28.11.2023 another FIR of Crime No.371/2023 was registered at Police Station Lawan, District Baloda Bazar, against the petitioner for the offence under Section 384 IPC and 3(2)(v-a) of SC&ST Act. The subsequent FIR of Crime No. 371/2023 was registered on the complaint made by the complainant Arun Chhabra and as per FIR, the information to the police received on 27.11.2023 whereas, the written complaint has been made on 13.05.2023 by the said complainant Arun Chhabra. In the subsequent FIR of Crime No.371/2023, the petitioner was arrested on 24.11.2024 and charge sheet was filed on 28.11.2023. In Crime No.371/2023, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court as well as by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in CRA No.1080/2024 vide order dated 22.08.2024. Ultimately the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.09.2024 and 09.01.2025 in SLP (Cr.) No.13396/2024. 4. The respondent No.1 moved an application under Section 439(2)CrPC [483(3) of BNSS, 2023] before the trial court for cancellation of bail 3 granted to the petitioner in Crime No.172/2023 registered at Police Station, Pandri, Raipur. In the said application, the respondent No.1 averred that after releasing the petitioner on bail on 09.06.2023 in bail petition No.1539 of 2023 there is another offence registered against the petitioner at Police Station Lawan, District Baloda Bazar vide FIR No.371/2023 for the similar nature of offence. It was also averred that in the bail order dated 09.06.2023 there was a condition that the petitioner should not indulge in similar nature of offence in future, yet he indulged in the similar nature of offence and his bail is liable to be cancelled. After hearing the parties, the trial court has passed its order on 05.03.2025 and cancelled the bail order dated 09.06.2023 passed in bail petition No.1539/2023 holding that there was a condition in the bail order that he will not indulge in any subsequent offence of similar nature, yet another offence has been registered at Police Station Lawan, District Baloda Bazar for the similar offence and he violated the conditions of bail and accordingly cancelled the bail order which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the bail of the petitioner has been canceled on untenable ground that he indulged in subsequent offence whereas as per the complaint made by the complainant Arun Chhabra, in the subsequent FIR of Crime No.371/2023 the said complaint was made on 13.05.2023 whereas the bail to the petitioner was granted on 09.06.2023 in the first FIR. Although the FIR has been registered subsequent to his release on bail in the first FIR, but the complaint was already made on 13.05.2023 by the complainant and there is no allegation that after releasing the 4 petitioner on bail he has committed any offence. He would also submit that once bail is granted, the right cannot be taken away simply because certain allegation have been levelled against him. He would also submit that only to keep the petitioner behind bar, the subsequent FIR got registered by the complainant who belongs to one and the same party i.e. both the complainants are the employees of one Sunil Agrawal which itself reflects from both the FIRs. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from material illegality and is liable to be set aside. He would rely upon judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349 and X. Vs. State of Telangana & Another, 2018 (16) SCC 511. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant would submit the complainant Arun Chhabra has made his complaint on 13.05.2023 alleging that the present petitioner along with his Gundas threatened and extorted money from them continuously since 24.04.2023. Their act of threat was continued and it was a continues cause of action till lodging of FIR. Even after 09.06.2023 when the petitioner was released on bail, his act was continued and the trial court has rightly considered that even after releasing on bail, the petitioner indulged in same nature of offence subsequently and has cancelled the bail vide its order dated 05.03.2025 which was granted in Crime No.172/2023. She would further submit that FIR has been lodged on 28.11.2023 which is subsequent to releasing him on bail. The petitioner is a habitual offender and indulged in similar nature of activities. Therefore, the 5 impugned order does not have any illegality and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the State/respondent No.2 would submit that on the complaint made by the complainant, the trial court has exercised its jurisdiction and cancelled the bail order. 8. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 9. It is not in dispute that FIR of Crime No.172/2023 was registered at Police Station Pandri, Raipur on 02.06.2023. It is also not in dispute that another offence of Crime No.371/2023 has been registered at Police Station, Lawan, District Baloda Bazar on 28.11.2023. In the first FIR of Crime No.172/2023 the petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 09.06.2023. There was a condition in the bail order dated 09.06.2023 that he will not repeat the offence of similar nature in future. The relevant part of the bail order is reproduced hereinbelow: **ifj.kker% vkjksih eukst ikaMs mQZ c`tyky dh vksj ls izLrqr tekur vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 439 n-iz-la- Lohdkj dj vknsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mldh vksj ls lacaf/kr eftLV~sV dh larqf”V ;ksX; nl gtkj :i;s dh l{ke tekur ,oa bruh gh jkf’k dk Lo;a dk ca/ki=] vijk/k dh iqujko`fRRk ugh djus] lk{; dks izHkkfor ugh djus rFkk izR;sd is’kh frfFk esa mifLFkr jgus dh ‘krZ ds lkFk is’k fd;k tkos rks mls tekur ij NksM+k tk;sA-------** 10. From perusal of the complaint dated 13.05.2023 which is the basis of subsequent FIR of Crime No.371/2023 registered at Police Station Lawan, it reflects that the complainant has raised allegation that the petitioner along with his Gundas threatened and extorted money from them since 24.04.2023 and their act had been reported on 13.05.2023 6 by the complainant to the Police Station Lawan. From the FIR of Crime No.371/2023 it also reflects that information received at Police Station is on 27.11.2023 whereas the General Diary Reference Entry was made on 28.11.2023. What transpired between 13.05.2023 to 27.11.2023 has not been disclosed either in FIR or anywhere. Even in the FIR of Crime No.371/2023 it has been reflected that complaint was received by the Station House Officer on 13.05.2023, meaning thereby whatever act has been reported which restricted up to the incident of 13.05.2023 and not beyond that period because on that day the complaint has already been made by the complainant and he could make complaint only up to the date when the complaint was made, not the complaint of any future day. Admittedly, the petitioner was released on bail on 09.06.2023 on the earlier FIR. Although, the complainant made complaint that the petitioner repeatedly came to there premises and threatened and extorted money from them and it was the continues cause of action, but that survives only up to 13.05.2023 i.e. prior to the date when the petitioner was released on bail. There is no complaint that when the petitioner released on bail on 09.06.2023 he again threatened the other complainant or repeated his act of extortion. Only on the ground that FIR has been registered on 28.11.2023, it cannot be held that the petitioner has repeated his act after releasing him on bail when the complaint has already been made on 13.05.2023, yet the trial court has considered it to be violative of conditions that he will not indulge in same offence in future. 11. In the matter of Dolat Ram (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 4 of its judgment held as under: 7 “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 dealt 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. 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.” 12. Further, in the matter of X. Vs. State of Telangana (Supra), the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 17 as under: “17. The accused had the benefit of an order granting him anticipatory bail. The grant of anticipatory bail was cancelled principally on the ground that he had not disclosed the pendency of a prosecution against him in the 2G Spectrum case. The Court has been informed during the course of the hearing that the said prosecution has ended in an acquittal. Regular bail was granted by the High Court on 17 November 2017 in the present case. The second FIR which was lodged on 22 November 2017 is not, in our view, a supervening circumstance of such a nature as would warrant the cancellation of the bail which was granted by the High Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has submitted that the lodging of the second FIR, four days after the order of bail is merely an attempt to bolster a case based on a supervening event and that it suffers from vagueness and a complete absence of details. We are not inclined to make any further observations and leave the matter there. Above all, the Court must bear in mind that it is a settled principle of law that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a supervening event has been made out. We find that to be absent in the present case.” 13. Bail is valuable right of an accused and it cannot be denied on cursorily or due to any superficial ground that too on such an untenable ground 8 that the petitioner has repeated his offence after releasing him on bail. When the alleged act was committed prior to releasing him on bail, it cannot be considered to be subsequent act of the petitioner even when the FIR has been registered subsequently. 14. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred hereinabove, this court is of the opinion that the trial court has committed illegality in canceling the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 09.06.2023. Therefore, the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 is set aside. 15. The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder