Chattisgarh High Court
Laxmi Narayan Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr on 7 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:20987
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 794 of 2025
1. Laxmi Narayan Dubey S/o Mukhi Chand Dubey Aged About
69 Years R/o Mahamaya Ward, Bodri, Ward No. 9, Bodri, P.S.
Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Through S H O P.S. Sirgitti,
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Rahul Ramdev @ Butiya S/o Pankaj Namdev Aged About 19
Years R/o Ward No. 11, Chakarbhatha Camp, Bodri, P.S.
Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.P. Gupta, Govt. Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
07.05.2025
1. This petition under Section 483 (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Surakasha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by applicant seeking
cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order
dated 16.12.2024 in M.Cr.C. No.8617/2024.
2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that after grant of bail,
respondent No.2 is torturing the prosecution witnesses and
compelling them to change their statements regarding which
complaint is also submitted by applicant with concerned
police. Respondent No.2 has sent a letter to applicant from
jail giving threatening to him regarding which he made
complaint in the concerned police station also. After passing
of the order by this Court granting bail to respondent No.2,
another FIR has been registered against him.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposing submissions
of learned counsel for applicant, would argue that respondent
No.2 has never extended any threat to applicant. Applicant
never tried to impress or compel witnesses of the prosecution.
Subsequent complaint is filed by applicant with ulterior motive
only to somehow get cancelled the bail granted to respondent
No.2. He submits that the criteria for cancellation of bail is
completely different from the criteria for grant of bail.
Applicant has not made any specific pleading in his petition
seeking cancellation of bail as to which of the conditions
imposed on respondent No.2 while granting bail has been
violated by him.
4. Heard learned counsel for respective parties.
5. The law relating to cancellation of bail is well settled by
various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court where it is held
that much more stringent criteria is applied while cancelling a
bail as compared to the relatively liberal view exercisable in
cases of grant of bail. The reason is obvious. When bail
granted to a person is cancelled, his right to liberty is
curtailed. Right to liberty is a fundamental right, which ought
not be to curtailed unless there are very strong and
compelling reasons. In case of Bhuri Bai vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2022 SCC Online 1779,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"19. It remains trite that normally, very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required
to cancel the bail already granted. Ordinarily, unless a
strong case based on any supervening event is made
out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered
with under Section 439 (2) CrPC."
6. Law of cancellation of bail is recently being reiterated by
Supreme Court in case of Himanshu Sharma vs State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 222 and relevant
part of the same is reproduced herein below for ready
reference:-
"11.Law is well settled by a catena of judgments
rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant
of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different.
Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the
Court is satisfied that after being released on bail:
(a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him;
(b) flouted the conditions of bail order;
(c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory
provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant
bail;
d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation
or fraud. In the present case, none of these situations
existed."
7. In case at hand, applicant is seeking cancellation of bail
granted to respondent No.2 on the grounds that subsequent
to grant of bail, respondent No.2 is compelling the prosecution
witnesses to change their statements; causing undue
influence and coercion by extending threat to applicant by
sending letter from jail regarding which an offence is also
registered against him. Thus, in substance, the basis for
seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 is
registration of FIR against him subsequent to grant of bail. It
is not the case of applicant that respondent No.2 has misused
the liberty or acted in violation of any of the conditions
imposed on him while granting bail.
8. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mubin and others,
reported in 2011 Crl. L.J. 3850, the Division Bench of the
Rajasthan High Court has observed as under;
"9. The primary question which is to be considered
by us in this case is as to whether the accused
applicants had committed any offence, during the
pendency of the appeal, on account of lodging of
some first information reports. In other words, can it
be said that a person has committed an offence
when a first information report is lodged against
him. In our considered opinion, merely lodging of a
first information report, does not amount to
commission of an offence and it is only
accusation/allegation which can be said to be
leveled against the accused person at the stage.
As a matter of fact, the question as to whether an
offence has been prima-facie committed or not is
considered when an opinion is formed by the Court
after applying mind on the material before it. That
stage would come only at the time of framing of
charge....."
9. From above decision it is clear that merely on the ground of
commission of subsequent offence after the grant of bail, the
person who was admitted to bail, can suffer cancellation of
bail only when the subsequent offence matures into framing
of charge and not prior to that.
10. True it is that FIR under Crime No.942/2024 (Annexure P-2)
has been registered against respondent No.2 by Police
Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur under Section296, 308 (4) of of
BNSS, 2023. However, in view of above decision in case of
Mubin (supra), merely lodging of FIR is not a sufficient ground
to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2.
11. In the light of above decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and
taking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
does not find any good ground to allow this application for
cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order
dated 16.12.2024 in M.Cr.C. No.8617/2024. The petition is
accordingly dismissed.
SYED
ROSHAN Sd/-
ZAMIR ALI
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
