The Superintendent Of Police Saharsa v. Rohit Kumar Jha @ Rohit Jha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30516 of 2012 ====================================================== The Superintendent Of Police Saharsa At Saharsa, P.S.- Saharsa, DistrictSaharsa .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Rohit Kumar Jha @ Rohit Jha S/O Surendra Kumar Jha Resident Of Village- Muradpur, P.S.- Nawhatta, District- Saharsa .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03/ 28-09-2016 Heard learned counsels for the State and opposite party.

The present application has been filed for cancellation of bail of opposite party granted vide order dated 17.09.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33468 of 2010 in connection with Nawhatta P.S. Case No. 62 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 414 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act.

The cancellation has been sought for on the ground that opposite party has been made accused in five other cases subsequent to the present one.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that the opposite party has been made in accused in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30516 of 2012 (3) dt.28-09-2016 2/2 Nauhatta P.S. Case No. 72 of 2011, Saharsa Town P.S. Case No. 92 of 2011, Nauhatta P.S. Case No. 06 of 2012, Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 66 of 2012 and Saharsa P.S. Case No. 112 of 2012 and all the cases were registered under Section 384 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code but out of five cases the opposite party has been acquitted in four cases except Saharsa Town P.S. Case No. 92 of 2011 which was lodged by the neighbour of opposite party. It is further submitted by Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party that he has received instruction that in the present case opposite party has also been acquitted, but no affidavit to that effect has been filed.

Considering the above facts, this Court finds no merit in this application, accordingly, it is dismissed. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T