Shambhu Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23215 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-877 Year-2023 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== Shambhu Mukhiya Son of Chotken Mukhiya Resident of Village- Basbitti, Ward No. -9, PS- Supaul, District- Supaul, Bihar- 852130 ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 3.
Sunil Mukhiya @ Sunil Kumar Son of Baua Mukhiya @ Baua Lal Mukhiya Resident of Village- Basua Fatak, P.S. and Distt.- Supaul, Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 :
Mr. Arun, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-07-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that opposite party no. 2 was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail in a murder case by an order dated 17.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 49345 of 2024. It is further submitted that in Cr. Misc. No. 49345 of 2024, the opposite party no. 2, at para 3, had pleaded that he has antecedent of 1 case when he had antecedent of two cases. It is, thus, submitted that opposite party no. 2 by concealing his criminal antecedent got the privilege of anticipatory bail, as such, the instant cancellation application has been filed with a prayer to cancel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23215 of 2025(4) dt.04-07-2025 2/3 the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 by order dated 17.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 49345 of 2024.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submits that the yardstick for grant of bail and cancellation of bail is different. It is further submitted that inadvertently, at para 3, one criminal antecedent of opposite party no. 2 could not be pleaded. It is next submitted that the said mistake was a bonafide inadvertence committed as inadvertently one criminal antecedent was not pleaded. It is also submitted that no doubt, the opposite party no. 2 was implicated in a case relating to murder of the brother of the informant but then the privilege of anticipatory bail was granted to the opposite party no. 2 with certain condition after considering the case of opposite party no. 2 on merits by a detailed order dated 17.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 49345 of 2024.
4. It is submitted that petitioner has not filed the instant cancellation application seeking cancellation on the ground that charge-sheet has been submitted connecting the opposite party no. 2 with the offence but then has taken a plea that opposite party no. 2 had concealed his antecedent. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 is on anticipatory bail in the case and has not misused the privilege.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23215 of 2025(4) dt.04-07-2025 3/3
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court perused the order dated 17.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 49345 of 2024.
6. The order dated 17.09.2024 has been passed after considering the case on merits in detail. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is also correct in his submission that opposite party no. 2 herein had concealed his criminal antecedent but then the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the antecedent could not be pleaded on account of a bona fide inadvertence, though the criminal antecedent was disclosed by the deponent of Cr. Misc. No. 49345 of 2024.
7. The Court, thus, is not inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 by an order dated 17.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 49345 of 2024.
8. The cancellation application is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T