Dismissed¶¶44

Marshlina Santiago v. Augystin Santiago

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jul 2026CRMP/1128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; CRMP No. 1128 of 2024; cancellation of bail; Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.; distinct considerations for grant and cancellation of bail; misuse of bail liberty; threatening/intimidating complainant to withdraw case; Section 506 IPC criminal intimidation; FIR Crime No.89/2026; MCRC No.8560 of 2023; FIR Crime No.245/2023; Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC; forged signatures HDFC Life Insurance Rs.2,30,000; Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) 4 SCC 222; sibling dispute over Bank/LIC deposit; Parth Prateem Sahu, J.; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The considerations governing grant of bail and cancellation of bail are distinct and operate in different fields; once bail has been granted, it cannot be cancelled in a routine or mechanical manner. ¶¶30

Marshlina Santiago Vs Augystin Santiago — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail granted to respondent No.1 vide order dated 12.01.2024 in MCRC No.8560 of 2023 should be cancelled on the ground that, after release on bail, he threatened and intimidated the petitioner to withdraw the criminal case instituted against him.

¶¶29

Court's answer

The considerations governing grant of bail and cancellation of bail are distinct and operate in different fields; once bail has been granted, it cannot be cancelled in a routine or mechanical manner.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

Cancellation of bail is warranted only when there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances indicating misuse of liberty, violation of bail conditions, tampering with evidence, influencing of witnesses, abscondence or interference with the fair administration of justice; the power under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. must be exercised with due caution.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

Mere registration of an FIR against the accused on a complaint alleging criminal intimidation is, by itself, not a sufficient ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶¶40
Except for the single complaint dated 08.02.2024 (now the subject of an independent criminal proceeding), no material was brought on record showing persistent intimidation, violation of bail conditions, tampering with evidence, influencing of witnesses or interference with the administration of justice; the parties are siblings and the dispute appears to concern withdrawal of money deposited with Bank/LIC.ratio¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail cancellation — Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. — Complainant/sister sought cancellation of regular bail granted to her brother (respondent No.1) vide order dated 12.01.2024 in MCRC No.8560 of 2023 (arising from FIR Crime No.245/2023, Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, alleging forged withdrawal of Rs.2,30,000/- from HDFC Life Insurance), on the ground that after release he threatened and intimidated her to withdraw the case; one written complaint dated 08.02.2024 resulted in registration of Crime No.89/2026 under Section 506 IPC. Held, relying on Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 4 SCC 222: considerations for grant and cancellation of bail are distinct; cancellation requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances showing misuse of liberty, breach of bail conditions, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, abscondence or interference with justice, and the power under Section 439(2) must be exercised with due caution; mere registration of an FIR on a solitary complaint — with no further complaints of intimidation after 2024 — is not a sufficient ground; the dispute is inter se siblings over withdrawal of money deposited with Bank/LIC. Petition dismissed. (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.; decided 21/07/2026.)

1 /

CGHC010135632024

2026:CGHC:31090

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 1128 of 2024

¶7

Marshlina Santiago W/o Raj Kumar Sen Aged About 35 Years R/o Road No. 1, House No. 22, Sector 1, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Complainant)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Augystin Santiago S/o Michel Santiago Aged About 39 Years R/o Road No. 1, House No. 22, Sector 1, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.),... (Accused)

¶11

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kishore Gupta, Advocate For Resp. No.1 : Ms. Mugdha Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Resp. No.2 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶14

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

21/07/2026

¶17

Facts relevant for adjudication of the present criminal miscellaneous petition are that the petitioner, who is the sister of respondent No.1

¶18

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.07.28 11:14:49 +0530

¶19

2 /

¶20

(applicant) had lodged a report at the concerned police station alleging that respondent No.1 had fraudulently withdrawn insurance amount of Rs.2,30,000/- from HDFC Life Insurance by forging her signatures. On the basis of the said report, FIR bearing Crime No.245/2023 was registered against respondent No.1 (applicant) for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, and he was arrested on 09.08.2023. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail, which was registered as MCRC No.8560 of 2023. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2024. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.1 by the aforesaid order.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that after being released on bail, respondent No.1 started threatening and intimidating the petitioner with a view to compelling her to withdraw the criminal case lodged against him. It is submitted that respondent No.1 threatened to implicate the petitioner in a false case alleging her unauthorized occupation of her father's house and warned that she would be made to face legal consequences. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 threw away the belongings of the petitioner kept in the house and has been continuously harassing her with the assistance of 4–5 other persons. In this regard, the petitioner lodged a written complaint before the concerned police station; however, according to the petitioner, no action has been taken thereon. He further submits that the aforesaid conduct of respondent No.1 clearly

¶22

3 /

¶23

demonstrates misuse of the concession of bail. Instead of abiding by the conditions subject to which he was enlarged on bail, respondent No.1 has attempted to intimidate and pressurize the petitioner with the sole object of compelling her to withdraw the criminal proceedings pending against him. Therefore the present petition be allowed and bail granted to respondent No.1 vide order dated 12.01.2024 be cancelled.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/applicant would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that petitioner/complainant and respondent No.1/applicant are siblings. There is no evidence brought on record by the petitioner/complainant to indicate that respondent No.1/applicant is in any manner involved in intimidating the petitioner. Allegations levelled against respondent No.1 are false and baseless. She submits that out of total amount of Rs.2,30,000/- for which the offence under Crime No.245 of 2023 was registered against respondent No.1, petitioner /complainant has already received Rs.1 lakh. Respondent No.1 has not misused the liberty and has not violated any of the terms and conditions which was imposed by Hon’ble Court while enlarging him on bail.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State submits that in compliance with the order dated 10.07.2026 passed by this Court, instructions were obtained with regard to the complaint dated 08.02.2024 lodged by the petitioner against respondent No.1. Inviting the attention of the Court to the communication dated 14.07.2026 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, he submits that, on the basis of the

¶26

4 /

¶27

said complaint, Crime No.89/2026 has been registered against respondent No.1 for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. A copy of the First Information Report registered in the said crime has also been placed on record.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with this petition.

¶29

The petitioner seeks cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.1 vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed in MCRC No.8560 of 2023, primarily on the ground that after being enlarged on bail, respondent No.1 threatened her to withdraw the criminal case instituted against him.

¶30

It is the settled principle of law that the considerations governing grant of bail and cancellation of bail are distinct and operate in different fields. Once bail has been granted, the same cannot be cancelled in a routine or mechanical manner. Cancellation of bail is warranted only when there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances indicating that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him, violated the conditions of bail, tampered with evidence, influenced witnesses, absconded, or otherwise interfered with the fair administration of justice. The power under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. is, therefore, required to be exercised with due caution.

¶31

In the case at hand, the allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No.1, after being released on bail, threatened and compelled her to withdraw the criminal proceedings instituted against him. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the State has placed on record the

¶32

5 /

¶33

communication dated 14.07.2026 sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, whereby it has been informed that, on the basis of the complaint submitted by the petitioner on 08.02.2024, Crime No.89/2026 has been registered against respondent No.1 under Section 506 of the IPC. No further complaint has been made by the petitioner alleging any similar act of intimidation or harassment by respondent No.1 after the year 2024.

¶34

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Himanshu Sharma vs State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 222 while dealing with the similar issue, has observed thus :

¶35

“ 11 . Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail:

¶36

(a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him;

¶37

(b) flouted the conditions of bail order;

¶38

¶39

d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. "…...

¶40

In the facts of the present case, although an FIR has been registered against respondent No.1 on the basis of the complaint alleging criminal intimidation, mere registration of such FIR, by itself, cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for cancellation of bail. As noticed hereinabove, the parameters governing cancellation of bail are distinct from those applicable to the grant of bail, and such power is required to be

¶41

6 /

¶42

exercised only upon the existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances demonstrating misuse of the liberty granted to the accused. Except for the aforesaid allegation, which is now the subject matter of an independent criminal proceeding, no material has been brought on record to show that respondent No.1 has persistently intimidated the petitioner, violated any of the conditions of the bail order, tampered with the evidence, attempted to influence witnesses, or otherwise interfered with the due administration of justice. Except one complaint submitted on 08.02.2024, no other complaint is made showing subsequent act of respondent No.1 or any other instance. For the facts as is available, it is apparent that the parties are siblings and the dispute appears to be of withdrawal of money deposited with Bank/LIC.

¶43

For the foregoing discussions, decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.1 vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed in MCRC No.8560 of 2023 is made out.

¶44

Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition, being devoid of merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶47

Praveen

Marshlina Santiago v. Augystin Santiago

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marshlina Santiago v. Augystin Santiago

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalpana Dey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrawan Kumar Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Maa Bhagvati Education Society Kanker Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Purshottam Ahuja, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Savitri Rai Sagar Vs Shri Prasana.R.