1 - XXX v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ganj Thana, Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6369 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2030 of 2022 1 - XXX ... Petitioner/Complainant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ganj Thana, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanjeev Agrawal S/o Late Shri Raghunandan Lal Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o House No.201, Sector 3 , Devendra Nagar, Police Station Ganj, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Office Address Shop No. 20, In Front Of Commercial Tax Office, Namaste Chowk , Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Reasoning
vide order dated 27.9.2022 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. (A) No. 1081 of 2022. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, is that on being report made by petitioner/complainant, FIR bearing Crime No.197/2022 was registered against respondent No. 2 herein/accused at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 354 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of that FIR, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2 herein vide order dated 27.9.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. (A) No. 1081 of 2022. 3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant stating inter alia that respondent No. 2/ accused has violated the conditions granting anticipatory bail to him. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainat would submit that after investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet against respondent No. 2 herein bearing Criminal Case No. 235/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 354 & 506 of the IPC, which is pending before the Special Railway Magistrate, Raipur. He further submits that after obtaining anticipatory bail, respondent No. 2/accused has threatened the petitioner and also not participating with the trial and thereby he has violated conditions granting anticipatory bail to him, therefore, he prays that the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. (A) No.1081 granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2 may be cancelled. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Kadam and others v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and another reported in (2011) 6 SCC 189 in support of his submission. 3 5. In reply, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/accused while referring to its reply would submit that respondent No. 2 has neither threatened the applicant nor violated any terms of anticipatory bail. He further submitted that respondent No. 2/accused is also participating in the trial, therefore, this petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State / respondent No. 1 would submit that looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, appropriate order may be passed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is settled proposition of law that granting bail is easy, then rejecting it difficult until & unless there is no any compelling reason to reject the bail, whether it be regular bail or anticipatory bail. 9. Three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi reported in 1978 (2) SCC 411 has made the following elemental distinction in defining the nature of exercise while cancelling bail that rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. 10. In the matter of Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held as under :- 4 “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…………..” 11. Again, in the matter of Ramcharan v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2004 (13) SCC 617, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that order of bail can be canelled on existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances but not on reappreciation of facts of the case. 12. Applying the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in afore-cited cases to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the petitioner is seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted on two counts firstly that respondent No. 2/accused has threatened the petitioner and secondly the respondent No. 2 is not cooperating with the trial Court in hearing of the case. 13. To substantiate aforesaid first ground, the petitioner has filed complaint (Annexure A-4) dated 11.11.2022 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, 5 Raipur about the threat extended to her by respondent No. 2/accused but she has not stated in aforesaid complaint (Annexure A-4) that earlier she had made any complaint to the concerned police station about the said threat extended to her by respondent No. 2. Further, if the S.P., Raipur did not take any action on the said complaint, then it is not apparent from the record that the petitioner has taken any recourse to law i.e. filing application under Section 175 (3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or filing private complaint before concerned Magistrate, instead of lack of such act, directly making complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur is not sufficient to find out the fact that respondent No. 2 herein has extended any threat to the petitioner. 14. The petitioner/complainant has not brought any compelling facts, which could be considered just & proper to take a view for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused. Further, in view of above consideration, the case law relied upon by the petitioner herein i.e. Prakash Kadam and others (supra), is not helpful to the petitioner in the instant case. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the present CrMP has no substance, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. Consequently, the Cr.M.P., being devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.02.07 10:59:45 +0530 6
Arguments
For Petitioner : Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Amiya Bhushan, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 04/02/2025 Heard on admission. 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 439 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has preferred by the petitioner/complainant for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused herein 2