Chhattisgarh High Court says non-payment alone is not ground to cancel bail in ₹1.35 crore cheating case

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 146 | 2026:CGHC:468282

January 29, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has refused to cancel the bail granted to an accused in a ₹1.35 crore cheating case, holding that failure to repay money, by itself, is not a valid ground to revoke bail unless there is clear misuse of liberty or interference with the course of justice.

The order was passed by Justice Arvind Kumar Verma in CRMP No. 1465 of 2024. The petitioner, Anil Kumar Shrivas of Janjgir-Champa, had sought cancellation of bail granted to Deepak Kumar Barad in August 2023 by a Raipur sessions court.

According to the case records, an FIR was registered at Tikrapara Police Station, Raipur, alleging that Barad, said to be associated with a trust, lured several people with promises of doubling their investments and offering permanent jobs with fixed salaries. The complainants alleged that a total of ₹1.35 crore was collected under false assurances.

The accused’s first bail plea had been rejected in July 2023. However, during subsequent proceedings, his wife reportedly executed a compromise deed stating that ₹15 lakh had been returned through RTGS and additional cheques were issued. Taking note of the settlement and the assurance of repayment, the sessions court granted regular bail on August 3, 2023.

The petitioner later approached the High Court under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that the accused had failed to honor his promise to repay the remaining amount and had therefore misused the concession of bail. It was also pointed out that more than a year had passed since registration of the crime and no final report had been filed.

In response, the accused submitted that he was willing to clear the remaining amount in installments. However, the petitioner argued that no payment had been made despite the assurances.

The High Court examined the legal standards governing cancellation of bail and relied on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases such as Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana and Hazari Lal Das v. State of West Bengal. The court reiterated that cancellation of bail requires “cogent and overwhelming circumstances,” such as attempts to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, abscond, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice.

Justice Verma observed that the original bail order did not impose any specific, time-bound condition mandating full repayment as a prerequisite for continuation of bail. The court clarified that references to settlement and repayment were only factors considered while granting bail, not binding conditions whose breach would automatically justify cancellation.

The court further noted that there was no material on record to show that the accused had attempted to threaten witnesses, tamper with evidence, evade investigation, or violate any explicit bail condition. Mere non-fulfilment of an assurance to repay money, the court held, does not amount to abuse of bail liberty.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations and the amount involved, the court emphasized that gravity of the offence alone cannot justify cancellation once bail has been granted through a reasoned order and no subsequent misuse is shown.

Dismissing the petition, the High Court made it clear that the complainants are free to pursue appropriate civil or other legal remedies for recovery of money, in accordance with law.

Case Reference :