Prakash Kashyap S/o Late H.L. Kashyap Aged About 43 Years R/o B - 170 v. 1 - Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Late Kranti Chand Sharma Aged About 55 Years
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13822 NAFR GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.03.26 11:07:09 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1902 of 2019 Prakash Kashyap S/o Late H.L. Kashyap Aged About 43 Years R/o B - 170, Lane No. 08, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Late Kranti Chand Sharma Aged About 55 Years R/o Quarter No. 01 A, Lane 25, Sector - 1, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Phul Gaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Khulesh Sahu, Advocate. For : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL. Respondent/State Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 22/03/2025 1. Instant revision has been preferred being aggrieved by order dated 17.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions 2 Judge in Misc. Criminal Case No. 25/2018 whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application for cancellation of bail preferred by the present petitioner under Section 439(2) of CRPC and the present petition is thus preferred seeking appropriate orders for cancellation of bail accorded to the private respondent vide order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in relation to the Crime No.200/2018 registered before the PS Phulgaon, District Durg for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint against respondent no. 1, leading to the registration of Crime No. 200/2018 under Section 420 of the IPC by P.S. Phulgaon, Dist- Durg (C.G.). The petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent no. 1 to purchase 2 acres of land for Rs. 40 Lacs. The petitioner paid the full amount, and respondent no. 1 signed a power of attorney, granting the petitioner the authority to sell the property in parts. Respondent no. 1 received a notice from the income tax department and, with dishonest intentions, demanded Rs. 10 Lacs from the petitioner. When the petitioner refused, respondent no. 1 canceled the power of attorney and sent notices to the buyers, attempting to harm the petitioner's reputation. The accused applied for bail under Section 438 of CRPC, which was granted with conditions. However, respondent no. 1 failed to comply with these 3 conditions, making illegal demands and threatening the petitioner. The petitioner's application for cancellation of bail was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Trial Court overlooked crucial facts while granting bail to the private respondent. Despite being paid Rs. 40 Lacs. under the agreement, the respondent refused to register the property, attempting to defraud the petitioner. He would submit that the respondent's actions, including sending legal notices and making newspaper publications, demonstrate a clear intention to interfere with the administration of justice. The bail granted was based on false and manipulated facts. He would submit that considering the respondent's abuse of liberty and potential future interference, it is submitted that the bail granted to the accused/respondent No.1 deserves to be cancelled. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper needs no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. On the issue with regard to rejection of bail and cancellation of bail already granted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter 4 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 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 5 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. 7. 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 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 6 circumstances. We are, thus, satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained.” 8. In the case of Abdul Basit Versus Md. Abdul Kadir Choudhury (2015) 1 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if the accused persons misrepresented the fact for obtaining the order of bail, the High Court should not have entertained the prayer for cancellation of bail by making reviewing earlier order of grant of bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, pleadings made in the petition, further keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions on the issue of cancellation of bail, this Court finds no such reason or supervening circumstance so as to warrant cancellation of bail granted to the accused. It is clear from the order dated 25/06/2018 that bail was granted by the trial Court to the accused person considering the totality of the facts of the case. Though the counsel has contended that the accused is misusing the liberty granted to him and is not following the terms and conditions imposed upon him, but has not brought on record any such thing which could substantiate his aforesaid contention and make out a prima facie case for cancellation of bail. 7 10. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge gouri