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. 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 para 4, which reads as under:- “4. Rejection of 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. Rejection of 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 bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) 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 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, bailonce 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hazari Lal Das Vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 652 held in para 7, which reads thus:- “7. There is nothing on record that there has been interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice by the appellant. It also does not appear from the record that the concession granted to him has been abused in any manner. No supervening circumstances have surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting the anticipatory bail has been interfered with by the High Court in the absence of cogent and convincing circumstances. We are, thus, satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained.” 11. In the present cases there is no cogent reason and nor a overwhelming circumstances have been shown by the prosecution before the trial Court. We are, thus, satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained.” 11. In the present cases there is no cogent reason and nor a overwhelming circumstances have been shown by the prosecution before the trial Court. It is also pertinent to mention here that after the order of bail granted by the trial Court, the petitioner has not been released due to non-furnishing the bail bond before the trial Court, therefore, there is no circumstances brought on record to reflect the situation of misuse of bail by the petitioner. In the case of Abdul Basit Versus Md. Abdul Kadir Choudhury (2015) 1 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if the accused persons misrepresented the fact for obtaining the order of bail, the High Court should not have entertained the prayer for cancellation of bail by making reviewing earlier order of grant of bail. 12. Therefore, applying the well settled principles of law in the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality by entertaining the prayer of cancellation of bail by making reviewing earlier order of grant of bail. 13. Accordingly, the order dated 13/12/2024 canceling the bail granted to the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail pursuant to the order dated 29/11/2024. 14. In the result, the petition is allowed.