ORDER : 1. The appellant has preferred these appeals under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the S.C./S.T. Act”), against the order(s) dated 6.8.2022 & 17.8.2022 respectively passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, whereby, the respondent No.2/accused (in both the appeals) have been granted bail in connection with Crime No.98/2022 registered at Police Station Mana Camp, District Raipur for the offence under Sections 306 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act and thereby, their application(s) filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been allowed. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.4.2022, Ganga Pasad Markandey committed suicide by hanging at his residence at village Baroda, Police Station Telibandha and left a suicide note dated 9.4.2022 alleging that Jagmeer Singh Gachha, R/o Civil Line, Raipur, Akashdeep Singh Gill (respondent) and their family members, Ganga Ram Sahu and five to six servants of their family threatened the deceased to implicate him in a false case and created a pressure on him to sell his house in a cheaper rate to them. The accused persons also threatened to kill his family members and destroy his house since Jagmeer Singh Garcha and Akashdeep Singh Gill as also the family members of the accused persons, were having political connections with the Members of the Ruling Party in the State. The accused persons made a false complaint against the deceased before the authorities and raised an objection with regard to construction made by the deceased, also filed a false case and sent a forged notice through their Advocate Kamlesh Pandey. In the said notice, Rs. 10 lakhs was demanded from Ganga Pasad Markandey (deceased) as damages, therefore, he could not bear such threats and misdeeds of the accused persons and took such an extreme step of ending his life by committing suicide. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the orders granting regular bail to respondent No.2 (accused) by the Court below are contrary to the settled principles. He submits that accused Akashdeep Singh Gill and Jagmeer Singh Garchha preferred WPCR Nos.437/2022 and 489/2022 respectively for quashing of the FIR before this Court and the said petitions were dismissed vide order dated 7.7.2022. He submits that accused Akashdeep Singh Gill and Jagmeer Singh Garchha preferred WPCR Nos.437/2022 and 489/2022 respectively for quashing of the FIR before this Court and the said petitions were dismissed vide order dated 7.7.2022. It has been categorically observed in the said petitions that frequent pressure was created and harassment and humiliation was meted out to the deceased for non fulfillment, for which, the deceased approached the Police, and therefore, in such a difficult situation, the deceased committed suicide. However, ignoring such observations made by this Court, the Court below granted bail to the respondents, which deserves to be cancelled. He further submits that Jagmeer Singh Garcha (co-accused) was granted interim bail looking to his age i.e. 86 years and serious ailments and therefore, the respondents (accused) cannot claim parity with the co-accused. Hence, considering all the aspects of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant prays to cancel the bail granted to the respondents (accused). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 (accused) and the State would support the impugned order. Learned counsel submit that the orders are well merits, which does not call for any interference, and hence, no case for cancellation of bail is made out. They would further submit that in a catena of judgments, it has been categorically held that normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted and no such circumstance is available in the present case. They place reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of X Vs. State of Telangana and another, (2018) 16 SCC 511 . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the appeals. 6. In X Vs. State of Telangana (supra), the grounds, which have to be taken into consideration, while dealing with an application for cancellation of bail, have been discussed. The relevant paras vide para 14 & 15 are reproduced below : “14. In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. The relevant paras vide para 14 & 15 are reproduced below : “14. In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolatram v State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 , observed that: : “Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of the bail, already granted, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion of attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.” 15. These principles have been reiterated by another two Judge Bench decision in CBI v Subramani Gopalakrishnan, (2011) 5 SCC 296 and more recently in Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22 : "23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." 7. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, considering the nature of accusation, particularly considering that the suicide note was written by the deceased on 9.4.2022 and the suicide was committed by him 17 days thereafter i.e. on 27.4.2022, and further considering that since the accused persons approached the concerned authority with regard to the alleged illegal constructions made by the deceased and in such background of the case, the aforesaid incident took place, this Court does not find the present to be a fit case to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2 (in both the appeals) by the Court below. 8. The impugned orders are just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 9. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.