← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43500/2024dismissed

Kajal Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-16Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43500 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2022 Thana- PIRI BAZAR District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== KAJAL KUMARI WIFE OF AMAN KUMAR RESIDENT OF MUHALLA - KATHARA, P.S. - PIRI BAZAR, DISTRICT - LAKHISARAI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar 2.

BALMIKI KUMAR @ BALMIKI YADAV SON OF GANESH YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE/ MUHALLA - KATHARA, P.S. - PIRI BAZAR, DISTRICT - LAKHISARAI ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Nirmala Kumari For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Amrendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-07-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present bail cancellation application has been preferred by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no. 02 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.2.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 1489 of 2024 arising out of Piri Bazar P.S. Case No. 6 of 2022.

3. The accused persons are said to have assaulted the prosecution side.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the opposite party no. 02 are serious in nature and therefore the bail may be cancelled.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 02

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43500 of 2024(3) dt.16-07-2026 2/2 submits that the allegations against the opposite no. 02 are false and the same has been levelled against him because of the fact that he is employed in Indian Army.

6. I have perused the impugned order granting bail to the opposite party nos. 2 and do not find any error in the said order. Further, the petitioner has not been able to show any good ground to interfere with the impugned order granting bail to the opposite party nos.2. Hence, no ground for cancellation of bail is made out.

7. Accordingly, this cancellation bail application is rejected.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U