RAJESH AGRAWAL vs RAJESH AGRAWAL

1

CGHC010334092026 2026:CGHC:38568
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2281 of 2026
Rajesh Agrawal S/o Narayan Prasad Agrawal Aged About 65 Years Proprietor
Singhal Provison Stores, Raipur R/o In Front Of Dahihandi, Maidan,
Shrinagar Road, P. S. Khamtarai, District Raipur C.G.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Rajesh Agrawal S/o Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o
239, Ward No. 36, Kalindi, Kunj In Front Of FCI Kabir Chowk Raigarh. District
Raigarh. C.G.
2 - Shailesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 25 Years 239,
Ward No. 36, Kalindi Kunj, In Front Of FCI Kabir Chowk Raigarh, District
Raigarh, C.G.
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Khamtarai, Raipur District – Raipur C.G.
---- Respondents
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
For Petitioner : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted
by Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate.
Digitally signed
by
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
For Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
01.09.2026
1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Suresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2,
and Mr. Shubham Bajpai, leanred Panel Lawyer, appearing for
respondent No.3/State.
2. The present petition is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – Rajesh Agrawal and Shailesh Kumar

2
Agrawal , as they were enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide
orders dated 16.07.2026 in MCRCA No.1114/2026.
3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had preferred anticipatory Bail
Application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.
529/2026, registered at Police Station – Khamtarai, District – Raipur
(C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and
60(a) of the BNS.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the assurance
that the parties will comply with the deed of settlement dated
08.07.2026, therefore, the petitioner had given consent and raised no-
objection for grant of bail to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and the part
of the settlement deed i.e. stock of sugar was ought to have been
returned as per settlement deed dated 08.07.2026, but the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to comply with the part of the settlement deed.
Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2,
be cancelled.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vehemently opposed the
prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that
this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos. 1 and
2/accused vide order dated 16.07.2026 in MCRCA No.1114/2026, 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

3
this Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons dated
16.07.2026 in MCRCA No.1114/2026.
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
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. 1 and 2 are trying to tamper with the evidence or are creating
obstructions in fair & impartial trial so as to create a very cogent and

4
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
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 the
complainant was already heard while this Court had granted
anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and after the
anticipatory bail being granted to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on
16.07.2026, 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. 1 and 2 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. 1 and

5
2/accused is refused, and resultantly the instant CRMP is hereby
dismissed .
12. 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