Sudhira Devi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23456 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2014 Thana- RIGA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Sudhira Devi W/o Late Manoranjan Singh and D/o Upendra Mahto, R/o Vill.- Kapraul, P.S.- Riga, District- Sitamarhi, presenently residing at Vill.- Sama Sasaula, P.S.- Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State Of Bihar 2.

Ram Chandra Singh S/o Late Bhakti Singh, R/o Vill.- Kapraul, P.S.- Riga, District- Sitamarhi.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandrasen Prasad Singh For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking cancellation of the bail bond of Opposite Party No. 2 in connection with Riga P.S. Case No. 80 of 2014 dated 22.08.2014, registered under Sections 323, 498A, 379, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Opposite Party No. 2 was granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.04.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36892 of 2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Opposite Party No. 2 has violated the conditions subject to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23456 of 2018(6) dt.07-07-2026 2/2 which bail was granted and, therefore, his bail is liable to be cancelled.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 submits that there has been no violation of the conditions of the bail order. It is further submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 has already provided a hut to the petitioner for her residence and the local SHO, upon verification, has found the petitioner residing therein.

5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the materials available on record, this Court finds that no cogent material has been brought on record to establish any violation of the conditions of the bail order warranting cancellation of the bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2.

6. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order granting bail to Opposite Party No. 2. The present application is, therefore, dismissed.

7. The personal appearance of the concerned police officer is dispensed with.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T