Chattisgarh High Court
Marshlina Santiago vs Augystin Santiago on 21 July, 2026
1/
CGHC010135632024 2026:CGHC:31090
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1128 of 2024
Marshlina Santiago W/o Raj Kumar Sen Aged About 35 Years R/o Road No.
1, House No. 22, Sector 1, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.)
(Complainant)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Augystin Santiago S/o Michel Santiago Aged About 39 Years R/o Road
No. 1, House No. 22, Sector 1, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.),...
(Accused)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Supela, District Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kishore Gupta, Advocate
For Resp. No.1 : Ms. Mugdha Sharma, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate
For Resp. No.2 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate
S.B.: Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
21/07/2026
1. Facts relevant for adjudication of the present criminal miscellaneous
petition are that the petitioner, who is the sister of respondent No.1
Digitally
signed by
PRAVEEN
KUMAR
SINHA
Date:
2026.07.28
11:14:49
+0530
2/(applicant) had lodged a report at the concerned police station
alleging that respondent No.1 had fraudulently withdrawn insurance
amount of Rs.2,30,000/- from HDFC Life Insurance by forging her
signatures. On the basis of the said report, FIR bearing Crime
No.245/2023 was registered against respondent No.1 (applicant) for
the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420,
467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, and he was arrested on 09.08.2023.
Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 439
of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail, which was registered as MCRC
No.8560 of 2023. The said application was allowed by this Court vide
order dated 12.01.2024. The present petition has been filed by the
petitioner seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.1
by the aforesaid order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that after
being released on bail, respondent No.1 started threatening and
intimidating the petitioner with a view to compelling her to withdraw
the criminal case lodged against him. It is submitted that respondent
No.1 threatened to implicate the petitioner in a false case alleging her
unauthorized occupation of her father’s house and warned that she
would be made to face legal consequences. It is further submitted
that respondent No.1 threw away the belongings of the petitioner kept
in the house and has been continuously harassing her with the
assistance of 4-5 other persons. In this regard, the petitioner lodged
a written complaint before the concerned police station; however,
according to the petitioner, no action has been taken thereon. He
further submits that the aforesaid conduct of respondent No.1 clearly
3/
demonstrates misuse of the concession of bail. Instead of abiding by
the conditions subject to which he was enlarged on bail, respondent
No.1 has attempted to intimidate and pressurize the petitioner with
the sole object of compelling her to withdraw the criminal proceedings
pending against him. Therefore the present petition be allowed and
bail granted to respondent No.1 vide order dated 12.01.2024 be
cancelled.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/applicant
would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
and would submit that petitioner/complainant and respondent
No.1/applicant are siblings. There is no evidence brought on record
by the petitioner/complainant to indicate that respondent
No.1/applicant is in any manner involved in intimidating the petitioner.
Allegations levelled against respondent No.1 are false and baseless.
She submits that out of total amount of Rs.2,30,000/- for which the
offence under Crime No.245 of 2023 was registered against
respondent No.1, petitioner /complainant has already received Rs.1
lakh. Respondent No.1 has not misused the liberty and has not
violated any of the terms and conditions which was imposed by
Hon’ble Court while enlarging him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that in compliance with the
order dated 10.07.2026 passed by this Court, instructions were
obtained with regard to the complaint dated 08.02.2024 lodged by the
petitioner against respondent No.1. Inviting the attention of the Court
to the communication dated 14.07.2026 issued by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Durg, he submits that, on the basis of the
4/
said complaint, Crime No.89/2026 has been registered against
respondent No.1 for alleged commission of an offence punishable
under Section 506 of the IPC. A copy of the First Information Report
registered in the said crime has also been placed on record.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
documents annexed along with this petition.
6. The petitioner seeks cancellation of the bail granted to respondent
No.1 vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed in MCRC No.8560 of 2023,
primarily on the ground that after being enlarged on bail, respondent
No.1 threatened her to withdraw the criminal case instituted against
him.
7. It is the settled principle of law that the considerations governing grant
of bail and cancellation of bail are distinct and operate in different
fields. Once bail has been granted, the same cannot be cancelled in a
routine or mechanical manner. Cancellation of bail is warranted only
when there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances indicating
that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him, violated the
conditions of bail, tampered with evidence, influenced witnesses,
absconded, or otherwise interfered with the fair administration of
justice. The power under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. is, therefore,
required to be exercised with due caution.
8. In the case at hand, the allegation of the petitioner is that respondent
No.1, after being released on bail, threatened and compelled her to
withdraw the criminal proceedings instituted against him. Pursuant to
the directions issued by this Court, the State has placed on record the
5/
communication dated 14.07.2026 sent by the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Durg, whereby it has been informed that, on the basis of the
complaint submitted by the petitioner on 08.02.2024, Crime
No.89/2026 has been registered against respondent No.1 under
Section 506 of the IPC. No further complaint has been made by the
petitioner alleging any similar act of intimidation or harassment by
respondent No.1 after the year 2024.
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Himanshu Sharma vs State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 222 while dealing with
the similar issue, has observed thus :
“11. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments
rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant
of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different.
Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the
Court is satisfied that after being released on bail:
(a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to
him;
(b) flouted the conditions of bail order;
(c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of
statutory provisions restricting the powers of the
Court to grant bail;
d) or that the bail was procured by
misrepresentation or fraud. “……
10. In the facts of the present case, although an FIR has been registered
against respondent No.1 on the basis of the complaint alleging criminal
intimidation, mere registration of such FIR, by itself, cannot be treated
as a sufficient ground for cancellation of bail. As noticed hereinabove,
the parameters governing cancellation of bail are distinct from those
applicable to the grant of bail, and such power is required to be
6/exercised only upon the existence of cogent and overwhelming
circumstances demonstrating misuse of the liberty granted to the
accused. Except for the aforesaid allegation, which is now the subject
matter of an independent criminal proceeding, no material has been
brought on record to show that respondent No.1 has persistently
intimidated the petitioner, violated any of the conditions of the bail
order, tampered with the evidence, attempted to influence witnesses, or
otherwise interfered with the due administration of justice. Except one
complaint submitted on 08.02.2024, no other complaint is made
showing subsequent act of respondent No.1 or any other instance. For
the facts as is available, it is apparent that the parties are siblings and
the dispute appears to be of withdrawal of money deposited with
Bank/LIC.
11. For the foregoing discussions, decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
referred to above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case
for cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.1 vide order
dated 12.01.2024 passed in MCRC No.8560 of 2023 is made out.
12. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition, being devoid
of merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
