Leeladhar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11396 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-390 Year-2011 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== LEELADHAR SHARMA Son of Kameshwar Prasad Sharma Resident of Village - Bhelwa, P.S.- and Distt - Sahrsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Hareram Yadav Son of Late Aghori Yadav Resident of Village - Bhelwa, P.S.- and Distt - Sahrsa.

3.

Umakant Yadav Son of Late Aghori Yadav Resident of Village - Bhelwa, P.S.- and Distt - Sahrsa.

4.

Sitaram Yadav Son of Late Aghori Yadav Resident of Village - Bhelwa, P.S.- and Distt - Sahrsa.

5.

Sanjay Yadav Son of Umakant Yadav Resident of Village - Bhelwa, P.S.- and Distt - Sahrsa.

6.

Kailu Yadav Son of Umakant Yadav Resident of Village - Bhelwa, P.S.- and Distt - Sahrsa.

7.

Jai Kumar Yadav Son of Hareram Yadav Resident of Village - Bhelwa, P.S.- and Distt - Sahrsa.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, Advocate For the State :

Ms. Rina Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed by the petitioner for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite parties no. 2 to 7 by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2012 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16998 of 2012 arising out of Saharsa P.S. Case no. 390/2011 registered for offence under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11396 of 2020(2) dt.15-07-2026 2/2 section 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 427, 380 of IPC and 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties no. 2 to 7 have been granted bail by this Court on concealment of the fact that they had criminal antecedents of similar nature at the time of grant of bail.

4. Upon hearing the parties and considering the fact that the impugned order is dated 08.05.2012 and around fourteen years have elapsed since then, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned order by which the opposite parties no. 2 to 7 were granted anticipatory bail.

5. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) aarti/- U T