Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439(2) of CrPC challenging the order dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No.21/2022, whereby application for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No.1 & 2 by the lower Court vide order dated 01.01.2022 and 03.03.2022 (Annexure P/2) was rejected. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that the petitioner while he was in jail, a made a compliant through Jail Superintendent to the Police Station Arang that the accused/respondent No.1 by making conspiracy have registered a false complaint against the petitioner, on the basis of which, the police of Police Station Khamtari has registered the FIR as Crime No.678/2021 for the offence under Section 376, 376 (2) (N) of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act against the petitioner and because of that he was in jail who later on granted bail from this Court. The petitioner in his complaint has stated that the respondent No.1 who is a married woman and his husband name is Rajendra Mahapatro and having two children and the petitioner came in contact with the Respondent No.1 about 8 to 10 years before at Raipur, at that time the Respondent No.1 introduced herself to the petitioner as an unmarried woman and stated that she was living at Raipur along with her brother and the children belong to her elder brother and she resides with her brother, because of taking care of his children as his wife passed away and there is no one to take care of the children. Gradually the said lady developed intimate relationship with the petitioner and used to visit several places along with petitioner as love relationship was developed between them and in some of the trips, the children were also there with them. The petitioner further submitted in his complainant that, the petitioner get involved with the Respondent No.1 and developed love relationship and with the intention of getting married with the said lady, came close to her and later on they got married in a temple at Jagdalpur, because she originally belongs to Jagdalpur and she went there along with petitioner and there they decided to get married. After the marriage was performed the Respondent No.1 asked the petitioner to construct a house on the plot at Raipur and stated that the house is required to be built for the purpose of their residence, because the petitioner also did not have any house situated at Raipur and then the petitioner contacted one contractor for the purpose of building the house and have spend about 15 lakhs rupees for the purpose of constructing said house, which took about one year to get finished and then they used to resides over the said house. When the petitioner stopped the financial help to the respondent No.1, asked him for some more money and when the petitioner did not fulfilled the same, FIR under Section 376 IPC and 6 of the POCSO Act have been made against the petitioner. When the petitioner realized these all things, he was kept behind the bars and then he made complaint against the respondent No.1 & 2, who cheated and exploited the petitioner for many years and also by keeping him in dark. The respondent No.1 also came so close to the petitioner to make him realize that he is her husband, whereas she was already a married lady and with the intention of cheating the petitioner, these all series of incident have been made against him and by taking cognizance of these serious nature of acts of respondents, the police has registered the FIR under Section 420, 384, 389, 34 of Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.1 & 2. 3. After registration of the FIR, the respondent No.1 & 2 (accused) approached before the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and the same was allowed by the learned Court below vide order dated 01-01-2022 & 03-03-2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after being released on regular bail, the respondents are continuously trying to influence the witnesses of the case and some persons, who were made witnesses by the police at the time of investigation of the case and when the police called the said persons for recording of their evidence in the case, they do not appear before the police or when the police approached them, the said witnesses did not cooperate for giving statements, because they were under the impression of respondent No.1 & 2. He further contended that the accused persons continuously trying to affect the investigation of the police authority and because of this, the investigation made by the police got affected and proper charge sheet could not be produced before the trial Court. It is therefore prayed that the petition may be allowed and cancel the bail of the respondents No.1 & 2 passed by the Court below vide order dated 01.01.2022 & 03.03.2022 (Annexure P-2). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no any evidence produced by the petitioner regarding violation of bail conditions by the respondents No.1 & 2. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 8. 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.” 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, pleadings made in the petition, further keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions on the issue of cancellation of bail, this Court finds no such reason or supervening circumstance so as to warrant cancellation of bail granted to the accused. It is clear from the orders dated 01.01.2022 & 03.03.2022 that bail was granted by the trial Court to the accused persons considering the totality of the facts of the case. Though the counsel has contended that the accused is misusing the liberty granted to them and are not following the terms and conditions imposed upon them, but has not brought on record any such thing which could substantiate his aforesaid contention and make out a prima facie case for cancellation of bail. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed.