Khushboo Parween v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6360 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2024 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar ====================================================== Khushboo Parween W/o Chhotu Poddar @ Chhotelal Poddar R/o VillageAnandnagar, Ward no- 45, PS- Town, Dist- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Akram Khan @ Md. Akram S/o Late Tayyab Khan R/o vill- Mahmood Chowk, Dilkas Bag, D.S. College Road, P.s.- Town, Distt.- Katihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anant Kumar 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP of the State.
2. The petitioner has filed the present application seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to opposite party no. 2 by the learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-VIII, Katihar vide order dated 05.05.2025 passed in S.Tr. No. 542 of 2024 (arising out of Katihar P.S. Case No. 40 of 2024) for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 326, 120B and 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. The grounds for cancellation of bail besides indicating seriousness of the offence are primarily confined to threatening the petitioner and other witness.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6360 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026 2/2
4. It is well settled that the parameters for cancellation of bail stand on a different footing from those applicable to the grant of bail. This Court finds no reason to take a different view, as the order granting bail to Opposite Party No. 2 is a wellreasoned and considered one. Moreover, the case is presently at the stage of evidence, and four witnesses have already been examined.
5. At this stage, the Court finds no reason to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2, however, on grounds of threatening etc., the petitioner would always have liberty to move the Court concerned who had granted bail to opposite party no.2, as such course has been held to be desirable by various judicial pronouncements.
6. In such view of the matter, the application stands disposed of with the liberty aforesaid.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T