AJAY KUMAR PATEL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010333382026 2026:CGHC:38570
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2257 of 2026
Ajay Kumar Patel S/o Shri Sevak Ram Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o H. No.
69, Nai Mohalla, Ward No. 12, Laduwa, Khairjhiti, Kawardha, Distt.
Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Pandatarai, District – Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
2 - Ajay Ganesh Patel S/o Kulendra Singh Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o
Village - Rohra, P.S. Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
3 - Shantanu Ram Patel S/o Kulendra Kumar Patel Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village - Rohra, P.S. Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate.
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
For Respondents/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally signed
by
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
01.09.2026
1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. Shubham Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for
respondents/State.
2. The present petition is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to
the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - Ajay Ganesh Patel and Shantanu Ram
Patel , as they were enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide
order dated 08.01.2026 in MCRCA No. 30/2026.
3.
The respondent No.2 had preferred anticipatory Bail Application under
Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of

2
anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No. 165/2025, registered at
Police Station – Pandatarai, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) for the
offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 191(2), 296 and 351(3) of
the BNS.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. 2
and 3 have obtained the impugned order granting bail dated
08.01.2026 by playing fraud and concealment of previous criminal
antecedents. It is submitted that in their anticipatory bail application,
they stated that they have no previous criminal antecedents, however,
there are several criminal complaints as also crime numbers registered
against them. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3, be cancelled.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/State vehemently opposes the prayer of the instant
petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that this Court has granted
anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/accused vide order
dated 08.01.2026 in MCRCA No. 30/2026, and there appears to be no
any infirmity and jurisdictional error while passing the same. Therefore,
the application is completely frivolous and deserves to be rejected.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order of
this Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons dated
08.01.2026 in MCRCA No. 30/2026.
7. From the perusal of entire records of this petition and the documents
do not suggest that the petitioner is able to project any valid reason for
cancellation of bail with respect to the touchstone of principle laid down

3
by the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated
20.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 861/2025 [Kailash Kumar
vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.] while setting aside a High
Court ruling cancelling bail of an accused, has observed here as under:
“Suffice to observe, liberty of an individual being a precious
right under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary
that such liberty is not lightly interfered. We are satisfied
that there was no valid reason for the High Court to cancel
the bail without there being any material to show, even
prima facie, that conduct of the appellant post grant of bail
has been such that he should be deprived of his liberty.
There are also no allegations of influence being exerted or
threat extended to the witnesses or of tampering the
evidence. Material to demonstrate that dilatory tactics have
been adopted to procrastinate the trial is also conspicuous
by its absence.”
It is settled principle that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances
are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already
granted.
8. In the instant case, from the perusal of documents it transpires that the
pleadings are not supported with a minimum proof that the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 are trying to tamper with the evidence or are creating
obstructions in fair & impartial trial so as to create a very cogent and
overwhelming situation for cancellation of bail.
9. Furthermore, the anticipatory bail granted can only be cancelled when
(i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal
activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to
tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges

4
in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there
is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make
himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the
investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach
of his surety etc. It is also well settled that even if two views are
possible, once the bail has been granted, it should not be cancelled. In
facts of this case nowhere suggest that any of the aforesaid condition
exists in the instance case, therefore, the principles laid down as above
shall squarely apply in the instant case.
10. Considering the same and applying the aforesaid principles, in the
considered view of this Court, no case is made out for cancellation of
bail or review or recall the order, it transpires from the record that this
Court had granted anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, and
after the anticipatory bail being granted to the respondent Nos.2 and 3
on 08.01.2026, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for
cancelling the bail appears to be an afterthought to get the anticipatory
bail of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 cancelled, therefore , I do not find
any good ground made out for consideration of the same.
11. In view of the above, prayer for cancellation of the order passed by this
Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused
is refused, and resultantly the instant CRMP is hereby disposed of .
12. Moreover, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and make
efforts to conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of
06 months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no any legal
impediment.

5
13. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance, forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rajshekhar