Cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances; the trial Court's failure to adhere to this principle constituted a grave illegality.

Order :

(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)

1. The instant petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed challenging the order of cancellation of bail dated 13/12/2024 in crime No.109/2023 registered at Police Station, Kunkuri for an offence under Section 363, 366, 376A, 376(2) (N), 506, 323, 34 of IPC and Sections 5 & 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has lodged a report on 09.09.2023 with the allegation that his daughter who is class -12 student at Govt. Higher Secondary School had gone to her Badi mummy's house on 06.09.2023 at about 10:30AM at that time thepetitioner came in car and took her daughter forcibly with him along with his two friends. Despite prosecutrix Badi mummy's refusal applicant and his two companions forcibly made her to sit in an Alto car and abducted her, information of which was received by complainant at 10.53Am. Thereafter, on being searched she could not be traced out and subsequently he came to know that she has gone with petitioner along with some unknown persons so initially an offence under section 363 of IPC has been registered and subsequently when she was recovered she stated that she is having some love affair with the present petitioner and by way of train they went to Indore and there they were residing as husband and wife. Thereafter, the prosecution agency after recording the statement and completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner has been arrested in the aforesaid commission of offences.

3. On 13.04.2024 petitioner got arrested and he preferred an application Under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail before learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge Under POCSO Act, Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) which was allowed vide order dated 29.11.2024 in the B.A./Spl. Crimi. Case under the POCSO Act No. 30/2023 and before bail bond could be furnished Spec. Public Prosecutor filed application under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 13.12.2024 the application was allowed and petitioner’s earlier bail order has been cancelled. Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in commission of aforesaid offence. He would next contend that the prosecutrix has herself left the house and started residing with the petitioner as husband and wife. He would next contend that in the trial Court she appeared through video conferencing before the trial Court and made no objection with regard to grant of bail to the petitioner. He would lastly contend that the instant petition may be allowed and the bail cancellation order may be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the order of the trial Court is well merited which do not call for any intereference.

6. Prosecutrix appeared from DLSA, Kunkuri through video conferencing and she raised objection with regard to grant of bail to the petitioner.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

8. Perusal of the documents would show that the trial Court has granted bail to the petitioner on 29/11/2024 for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376A, 376(2)(N), 506, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 5 & 6 of protection of Children from sexual offences Act, however, on 11/12/2024 an application was filed under Section 439 (2 )of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court and the trial Court has decided the said application and cancelled the bail granted by the trial Court itself on the ground of objection raised by the maternal grandmother of the prosecutrix and also on account of pendency of one criminal case against the petitioner under Section 454 & 380 of IPC.

9. 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