HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
Lokesh Agrawal S/o Shri Radha Kishan Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRMP No. 611, 615, 632 of 2021
Decided on : 21-3-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(2) - Cancellation of bail - Petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to respondents on grounds of cheating and non-compliance with agreement - The trial court overlooked the gravity of the offence and the potential for witness tampering. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 9)
(B) Bail Cancellation - The Supreme Court in Dolat Ram and Hazari Lal Das established that cancellation requires cogent circumstances and should not be done mechanically. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged that respondents received a substantial amount but failed to comply with the agreement, leading to claims of cheating. The matter is under investigation for potential additional charges.
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial reason or supervening circumstances to warrant the cancellation of bail.
Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court properly considered the gravity of the offence and the potential for witness tampering.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court's decision to grant bail was justified based on the totality of the facts, and no prima facie case for cancellation was established.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Order :
(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)
1. Since all the petitions are arising out of common order they are being heard and decided by this common order.
2. These petitions have been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to allow the petitions and reject the bail orders granted to respondents- Dhirendra Kumar Sharma, Narendra Kumar Sharma, Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Smt. Sunita Sharma and Koushal Kishore Sharma by order dated 15.06.2021 passed in Crime No.312 of 2021 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
3. Relevant facts for disposal of these petitions are that the present application is cancellation of the bail of the respondents. The petitioner had paid Rs. 1,60,71,250 (Rupees One Corer Sixty Lakhs seventy one thousand and two hundred and fifty) to the respondents and co-owner of the property and admittedly the amount was received by the respondents and co-owner, but the respondents have cheated the petitioner by not complying their part of agreement and file an application and taken the order of partition. Further documents which was provided to the petitioner like PAN Card, B1, names and surname are different, so from the inception of agreement, the respondents have an intention to cheat the petitioner and grab huge amount. The matter is under investigation and during investigation, various other Sections will be added against the respondents. This aspect had totally been overlooked by the learned trial Court and granted anticipatory bail to the respondents. Hence, these petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that looking to the gravity of offence, which has been caused by respondents, bail order of the respondents is liable to be rejected. He further contended that only on the presumption and assumption, the application under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. was allowed without considering the material fact, by the learned trial Court. He further contended that the learned Session Judge had nothing discussed nothing on merits of the matter and without discussing the allegation levelled against the respondents, had granted the bail. He further contended that the matter is still under investigation and there is every chance during the investigation that an offence under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and other Section of Indian Penal Code will also be registered against the accused persons. It is also contended that the learned lower court has not considered that there is reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness and the discretion exercise by the learned lower court in non-judicious manner and the order pass is in such a causal manner and same is liable to be set aside. It is therefore, humbly and most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble court may kindly pleased to quash/set aside the order dated 15/06/2021 and other relief may be granted, which the Court deems fit under the facts and circumstance of the case.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper needs no interference.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.
7. 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 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 cours
Cancellation of bail requires cogent circumstances; mere allegations are insufficient without substantial evidence.
Cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of misuse or supervening circumstances; mere allegations are insufficient.
Bail should not be cancelled mechanically; serious allegations and proper reasoning are essential for cancellation, and the learned Trial Court's discretion must be respected unless perverse.
Cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of misuse or interference with justice, and mere non-payment of a disputed amount does not suffice.
Cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of supervening circumstances; mere allegations are insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that consistent violation of court directions and non-compliance with previous court orders can warrant the cancellation of bail. Additionally, the....
Cancellation of bail should be treated differently from a bail application and should only be cancelled if strong and compelling reasons exist, as established by legal precedents and guidelines.
(1) Cancellation of bail – Under normal circumstances, application for cancellation of bail filed on merits as opposed to violation of conditions of bail order should be placed before same Single Jud....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.