SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Chh) 100

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR 
Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
Parasmani Chandrakar @ Paras S/o Shankar Lal Chandrakar – Appellant 
Versus
Smt. Vishnupriya Mahapatro W/o Rajendra Kumar Mahapatro – Respondent 
CRMP No. 1515 of 2022 
Decided on : 27-03-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA

Cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of misuse or supervening circumstances; mere allegations are insufficient.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(2) - Cancellation of bail - Petition challenging the rejection of cancellation of bail granted to respondents - Petitioner alleges misuse of bail and interference with witnesses - Court finds no cogent evidence of bail misuse or supervening circumstances justifying cancellation - Principles for cancellation of bail established in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana and Hazari Lal Das v. State of West Bengal discussed. (Paras 1, 7, 8, 9)

(B) Bail - Cancellation - The court emphasized that cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, and should not be done mechanically without considering supervening circumstances. (Paras 7, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, previously jailed, claims that the respondents conspired against him, leading to false charges under IPC and POCSO Act. After being granted bail, the petitioner alleges the respondents influenced witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of bail misuse or interference with justice, thus dismissing the petition for cancellation of bail.

Issues: The main issue was whether there were sufficient grounds to cancel the bail granted to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without cogent evidence of interference or supervening circumstances, the bail should not be cancelled, reaffirming the principles established in prior Supreme Court rulings.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Order :

(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)

1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439(2) of CrPC challenging the order dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No.21/2022, whereby application for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No.1 & 2 by the lower Court vide order dated 01.01.2022 and 03.03.2022 (Annexure P/2) was rejected.

2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that the petitioner while he was in jail, a made a compliant through Jail Superintendent to the Police Station Arang that the accused/respondent No.1 by making conspiracy have registered a false complaint against the petitioner, on the basis of which, the police of Police Station Khamtari has registered the FIR as Crime No.678/2021 for the offence under Section 376, 376 (2) (N) of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act against the petitioner and because of that he was in jail who later on granted bail from this Court. The petitioner in his complaint has stated that the respondent No.1 who is a married woman and his husband name is Rajendra Mahapatro and having two children and the petitioner came in contact with the Respondent No.1 about 8 to 10 years before at Raipur, at that time the Respondent No.1 introduced herself to the petitioner as an unmarried woman and stated that she was living at Raipur along with her brother and the children belong to her elder brother and she resides with her brother, because of taking care of his children as his wife passed away and there is no one to take care of the children. Gradually the said lady developed intimate relationship with the petitioner and used to visit several places along with petitioner as love relationship was developed between them and in some of the trips, the children were also there with them. The petitioner further submitted in his complainant that, the petitioner get involved with the Respondent No.1 and developed love relationship and with the intention of getting married with the said lady, came close to her and later on they got married in a temple at Jagdalpur, because she originally belongs to Jagdalpur and she went there along with petitioner and there they decided to get married. After the marriage was performed the Respondent No.1 asked the petitioner to construct a house on the plot at Raipur and stated that the house is required to be built for the purpose of their residence, because the petitioner also did not have any house situated at Raipur and then the petitioner contacted one contractor for the purpose of building the house and have spend about 15 lakhs rupees for the purpose of constructing said house, which took about one year to get finished and then they used to resides over the said house. When the petitioner stopped the financial help to the respondent No.1, asked him for some more money and when the petitioner did not fulfilled the same, FIR under Section 376 IPC and 6 of the POCSO Act have been made against the petitioner. When the petitioner realized these all things, he was kept behind the bars and then he made complaint against the respondent No.1 & 2, who cheated and exploited the petitioner for many years and also by keeping him in dark. The respondent No.1 also came so close to the petitioner to make him realize that he is her husband, whereas she was already a married lady and with the intention of cheating the petitioner, these all series of incident have been made against him and by taking cognizance of these serious nature of acts of respondents, the police has registered the FIR under Section 420, 384, 389, 34 of Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.1 & 2.

3. After registration of the FIR, the respondent No.1 & 2 (accused) approached before the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and the same was allowed by the learned Court below vide order dated 01-01-2022 & 03-03-2022.

4. L

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top