State v. Omprakash Sinha) by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund
Case Details
1 SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.16 18:18:48 +0530 2025:CGHC:32912 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2060 of 2025 Omprakash Sinha S/o Shri Narottam Sinha Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Potiya Police Station Khallari District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khallari District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Xyz (Details Provided In Covered Envelope) ... Respondents For Petitioner For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
“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.,” 12. Considering the aforementioned judgments and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that cogent and 5 overwhelming circumstances justifying cancellation of bail are lacking. The victim's application under Section 483(3) of BNSS alleges misuse of bail by the petitioner, including threats, misbehavior, and throwing stones at her house while carrying an axe. However, the victim has not lodged any complaint anywhere as regards the above allegations. Further, the victim's Court statement dated April 21, 2025, lacks specificity regarding the date and time of these incidents. Moreover, there is no material on record to corroborate that anyone witnessed the petitioner carrying an axe, and no such investigation report from the concerned Police Station has been called for in this regard. The impugned order, passed without affording the petitioner herein an opportunity for hearing, is therefore unsustainable. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated April 23, 2025, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.), is hereby set aside. The petitioner’s earlier bail bonds shall continue. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law. 14. Accordingly, the Cr.M.P. is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 is hereby set-aside. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham
Arguments
Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. The Petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 23.04.2025, whereby the bail granted by learned 2nd ASJ, Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 has been cancelled against which the instant petition has been preferred by the Petitioner. 4. Vide order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Special Criminal Case No. H-14/2025 (State Vs. Omprakash Sinha) by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, the bail application of the Petitioner herein filed under Section 483 of BNS was allowed on the following conditions:- “1. He shall remain present at 11:00 AM on each date. 2. He shall not make any direct or indirect attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses. 3. He shall not repeat the offence.” 5. On April 15, 2025, the victim filed an application under Section 483(3) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, alleging that the applicant had misused the bail granted in his favor by threatening and misbehaving with her. On which, the statement of the victim was recorded on 21.04.2025 and vide order dated 23.04.2025, the bail of the Petitioner herein granted on 04.03.2025 was canceled and he was directed to surrender on 25.04.2025. Hence, this petition. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the Trial Court's impugned order is based solely on the victim's statement, without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity for hearing. Although the victim testified that the petitioner threw stones at her house 3 and threatened to kill her, carrying an axe, there is no evidence on record to corroborate these allegations. The learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to consider this lack of evidence while passing the impugned order, rendering it unsustainable. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to have the order set aside and be released on bail. 7. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the above argument advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is settled principle that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. 10. 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:- Very cogent “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. 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 4 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.” 11.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: