Alok Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.47820 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2746 Year- 2013 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Alok Kumar Singh, son of Shri Ragho Prasad Singh, resident of MohallaKeshari Nagar, P.S. - Patliputra, District - Patna - 800024. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sunil Kumar Singh son of Late Balram Singh resident of Village - Gajadharchak, P.S. - Danapur Cantt, District - Patna, at present resident of House of Sri Nagendra Singh, Indrapuri, Road No. 104, P.S. - Keshrinagar, District - Patna.
.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhuri Lata (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 22-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
This application has been filed for cancellation of bail of opposite party no.2, namely, Sunil Kumar Singh, who has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9254 of 2014 on 19.04.2014 on the ground that he used to visit the shop of the petitioner and hurls threats for dire consequences unless he withdraw the case lodged against him. In the present case, the matter relates to dishonouring of cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-. Out of which, the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47820 of 2015 (10) dt.22-11-2017 2/3 opposite party no.2 has already returned Rs.2,50,000/-, for the rest amount the trial is going on in the Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.2 is facing large number of cases of same nature, even some cases have been lodged after release of the opposite party no.2 with similar to the present case. He further submits that opposite party no.2 used to visit the shop of the petitioner and hurls threats for dire consequences. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the complaint which has been lodged bearing the statement of two confident employees of the petitioner and there is no independent witness. He denies the allegation to have ever gone to the shop of the petitioner and hurled threat.
The parameter of cancellation of bail is quite different to the parameter of granting bail. Once the bail has been granted unless there is every likelihood of tempering with the evidence or otherwise and also threatening the informant or the complainant, in such circumstance, the Court may cancel the bail. Basically, the present case is a business dispute and allegation of threatening has been made. At this stage, this Court is not cancelling the bail of the opposite party no.2, but this Court directs the opposite party no.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47820 of 2015 (10) dt.22-11-2017 3/3 shop nor house of the petitioner nor go nearby to the aforesaid places and in no way he will give threat to the petitioner either orally or by posture or through telephonic conversation and the massage. If this Court finds that the petitioner fails to rectify his behaviour, in such circumstance, the petitioner will be at liberty to inform the police and the police is directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of. (Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U T