Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. Since all these petitions are arising out of the same offence, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. 2. CRMP Nos.2568 & 2483 of 2024 have been filed against the order dated 24/08/2024 passed by the Court of Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Durg whereby the accused Manish Soni has been granted anticipatory bail. 3. CRMP No.2563 of 2024 has been filed against the order dated05/08/2024 passed by the Court of Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Durg whereby the accused Dhiraj Soni has been granted anticipatory bail. 4. These petitions have been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons/Respondent No.2. 5. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the applicants are victims of cheating and criminal breach of trust committed by the accused persons Manish Soni and Dhiraj Soni. The applicants are goldsmith by profession and run jewellery shops in Durg. The accused persons are also in the same profession and they approached the applicants and gave allurement of handsome business profits. The accused gave allurement in a well calculated manner that the applicants shall give finished gold jewellery and he would sell them and in return they would give cash amount and fine bullion gold. In order to gain confidence of the applicants, the accused used influence of some other jewelers and again gave assurance of good profit. Thereafter, the accused persons had fraudulently obtained/collected gold jewellery worth Rs. 21,00,000/- (Twenty-one Lakh rupees) from the applicant Pramit Dhara and Jwellery worth Rs.40,00,000/- from the applicant Vijay Soni with an assurance to return cash amount as well as fine bullion gold. But, the accused persons neither paid any amount nor gave any fine bullion gold. Upon contacting them personally the accused persons kept on avoiding the return consideration for some reason or the other and gave assurance that the jewellery entrusted to him is in safe custody with him. Upon repeatedly asking for return of the entrusted gold jewellery the accused and their family members have clearly denied the same and have threatened of dire consequences. 6. Thereafter, the applicants inquired from other jewelers and came to know that in the same style and fashion the accused has cheated many persons by committing criminal breach of trust against them also. 6. Thereafter, the applicants inquired from other jewelers and came to know that in the same style and fashion the accused has cheated many persons by committing criminal breach of trust against them also. That, after losing every hope, the applicants lodged report in the police station concerned and against them for commission of the offences punishable U/s. 420, 406, 34 of the I.P.C. was registered and the investigation was started. The accused persons apprehending arrest preferred Bail Applications U/s. 482 of B.N.N.S. for grant of anticipatory bail and the learned Court of Special/Additional Session Judge, Durg (CG) has readily allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail. Hence these petitions. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the prosecution is not taking any interest in investigation because of that there are chances of tampering or disappearing the evidence. He would next contend that the accused persons/Respondent No.2 are habitual offenders and they have previous antecedents. He would next contend that the illegally obtained gold has not been recovered and grant of anticipatory bail would facilitate them to disappear the subject property. He placed his reliance in the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Puran Vs. Rambilas and Another { (2001) 6 SCC 338 } and would submit that the bail granted to the accused persons may be cancelled. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/accused persons would support the impugned order and would submit that the order passed by the ASJ requires no interference by this Court. 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 dealth 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 dealth 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 case of Abdul Basit Versus Md. 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 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. In the present cases the orders of grant of anticipatory bail have been challenged on the ground of it being perverse in law. Further on perusal of the order passed by the Sessions Judge, I have found that the Sessions Judge has considered the entire facts & circumstances of the case. Since the circumstances brought on record do not reflect that the accused persons have misused the bail granted to them, I could not have determined the issue for cancellation of bail on the ground of it being perverse in law. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, pleadings made in the petition and the aforementioned principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of cancellation of bail, this Court finds no good ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2/accused persons. 14. Accordingly, all the petitions being without any substance are hereby dismissed.