Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Saurabh Jain on 20 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:13446
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1160 of 2020
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon,
District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
Saurabh Jain S/o Uttam Jain Aged About 34 Years Occupation Business,
R/o Mohalla Ramdadheen Marg Thana, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. AG.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
20/03/2025
1. State/applicant has preferred this petition under Section 439 (2) of the
Cr.PC for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent/accused by
learned Session Judge, Rajnandgaon, (CG), vide order dated 20.09.2018
(Annexure A-1).
2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that on 19.01.2008,
Dharamchand Agrawal was in his office, at about 8.15 PM, accused
came to the office and fired gunshot at him and, thereafter, accused fled
from the spot alongwith another co-accused who was waiting outside of
the office on motorcycle. Due to gun-shot, Dharamchand Agrawal
sustained injury on his chest. Based upon report lodged by Navin
Agrawal (son of injured), FIR was registered for offence under Section
307/34 of IPC and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and
accused/respondent was arrested on 16.08.2018. However, vide order
dated 20.09.2018 (Annexure A-1), respondent-accused has been granted
bail on certain terms and conditions. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the State/applicant submits that bail order Annexure
A-1 has been passed by learned Session Judge in contravention of the
settled principles of law. There are sufficient evidence/material available
in case diary regarding involvement of the respondent/accused in the
commission of alleged offence/crime. Memorandum statement of co-
accused (A. Chinna) as well as other accused persons regarding
involvement of respondent would be admissible in terms of the Section
30 of the Evidence Act. Learned Counsel further submits that learned
Court below has overlooked the fact that the respondent-accused has
remained absconded for about 10 years and his arrest could be secured
after much efforts. The learned Court below also ignored that only few
days earlier, vide order 23.08.2019 bail application of respondent-
accused has been rejected on merits in which it was considered that the
anticipatory bail application of respondent/accused has been rejected by
the High Court. Despite rejection of earlier bail application, learned Court
below has allowed the repeat bail application of respondent-accused on
the ground of health condition merely on submission, without
appreciating that there is no material/evidence in this regard. Hence, it is
prayed that bail order Annexure A-1 be cancelled in the interest of justice.
In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of
Rajasthan & Another, (2012) 12 SCC 180.
4. Heard learned counsel for the State/applicant and perused the material
available on record.
5. On the issue with regard to rejection of bail and cancellation of bail
already granted, 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:-
"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 dealth 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.
6. 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
circumstances. We are, thus, satisfied that the
impugned order cannot be sustained."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of
learned counsel for the State/applicant, 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 respondent/accused. It is
clear from the bail order Annexure P-1 that the learned Court below
granted bail to the accused person considering the totality of the facts of
the case.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby
dismissed. Sd/-
CC as per rules. Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
J/-
