Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40543/2017dismissed

Nand Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-10-04Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40543 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -85 Year- 2015 Thana -KUDRA District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ======================================================

1. Nand Kumar Singh S/o Late Surendra Prasad Singh Resident of VillageKudra Ward No. 2, P.S. Kudra, District-Kaimur .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Anil Pratap Singh S/o Kedar Singh Resident of Village-Panchpokhari, P.S. Kudara, District-Kaimur at Bhabua .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Saurav, Adv. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP 178 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-10-2017 Heard both the sides.

The petitioner filed this petition for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no. 2. Opposite party no. 2 was granted bail on 11.05.2017, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21321 of 2017 as the name of opposite party no. 2 figured in the case on suspicion.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no. 2 is an accused in another case of defalcation of Government money and this fact has been concealed by opposite party no. 2 in paragraph 2 of the bail petition. Therefore, the bail granted to opposite party no. 2, Anil Pratap Singh, may be cancelled.

It appears that opposite party no. 2 was not named in the first information report. The informant filed protest petition, but, the informant did not name opposite party no. 2 in the accused column. On mere suspicion opposite party no. 2 was arrested on 05.03.2017 and during the course of investigation it only transpired that opposite party no. 2 had talk with the deceased on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40543 of 2017 (3) dt.04-10-2017 2/2 many dates and there was verbal altercation between opposite party no. 2 and the deceased. It appears that after hearing the learned counsel for the informant, opposite party no. 2 was granted bail.

On mere fact that opposite party no. 2 did not disclose that he was accused in a criminal case registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, I do not find the case fit for cancellation of bail to opposite party no. 2. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) SA/- U √ T √