← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29873/2019dismissed

Hridyanand Tiwary v. The State Of Bihar

2023-02-15Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29873 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2018 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== HRIDYANAND TIWARY Son of Late Sudama Tiwary Resident of VillageLaukaha, P.S.- Paharpur, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Raj Kishore Tiwary Son of Rudal Tiwary Resident of Village-Laukaha, Police Station-Paharpur, District-East Champaran. 3.

Ram Ayodhya Tiwary Son of Rudal Tiwary Resident of Village-Laukaha, Police Station-Paharpur, District-East Champaran. 4.

Upendra Tiwary Son of Rudal Tiwary Resident of Village-Laukaha, Police Station-Paharpur, District-East Champaran.

5.

Sonu Tiwary Son of Ram Ayodhya Tiwary Resident of Village-Laukaha, Police Station-Paharpur, District-East Champaran. 6.

Jhunu Tiwary Son of Upendra Tiwary Resident of Village-Laukaha, Police Station-Paharpur, District-East Champaran.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-02-2023 Heard.

This application has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to O.P. Nos. 2 to 6. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the Opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 have got one criminal antecedent i.e. Paharpur P.S. Case No. 131 of 2013.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Opposite party Nos. 2 to 6.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29873 of 2019(3) dt.15-02-2023 2/2 In paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 have already been acquitted in the above-referred case. Hence there is no criminal antecedent of Opposite party Nos. 2 to 6. Except for this, there is no other ground has been taken by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party Nos. 2 to 6. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the order granting anticipatory bail to the Opposite party Nos. 2 to 6. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed. (Sudhir Singh, J) A.K.V.//- U T