Ram Bahadur Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25802 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -45 Year- 2015 Thana -MANSURCHAK District- BEGUSARAI ====================================================== Ram Bahadur Mahto.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Manoj Kumar - 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

This criminal miscellaneous has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 in Cr. Misc. No. 7042 of 2016 wherein they are petitioners, on the ground that after release on bail they have committed an offence and for that Mansurchak P.S. Case No. 19 of 2016 has been registered. The petitioners are causing threats to withdraw the present case and for that they have assaulted the petitioner and others. The opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are anti-social element and have got no regard of law and, as such, their bail granted should be cancelled.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner has lodged false case, no such occurrence has taken place. The police being in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25802 of 2016 (8) dt.15-03-2017 2/2 collusion has submitted chargesheet, counter case was also filed but the petitioner is an influential person and being in collusion the police submitted final form, in the case lodged by Urmila Devi the wife of opposite party no.3 and against that protest complaint has been filed. It is submitted that the opposite party no.2 to 4 are law abiding citizen and have never misused the privilege of bail. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the period of detention and further the nature of dispute, the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 were granted bail by order dated 02.03.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7042 of 2016 and no sufficient cause has been shown to cancel their bail granted and, as such, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous stands dismissed. However, the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are directed not to commit such offence in future, failing which serious view will be taken.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T