Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11783/2016dismissed

Kameshwar Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-05-18Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11783 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -87 Year- 2013 Thana -KARAHGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Kameshwar Singh, Son of late Chandrma Singh, Resident of village-Rehari, P.O. Barahari, P.S. Kargahar, District Rohtas at Sasaram. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Geeta Devi, Wife of Sri Surya Nath Kumar, Mukhia of Gram Panchayat Raj Barahari, Resident of village-Barahari, P.S. Kargahar, District Rohtas at Sasaram.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Veena Rani Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 25.07.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28835 of 2013 in connection with Kargahar P.S. Case No. 87 of 2013 on the ground that opposite party no. 2 got the aforesaid bail by suppressing the real facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 got prepared forged affidavit and pleaded before this court that beneficiaries had already received the benefits but as a matter of fact, petitioner being beneficiary had not received any benefit and, therefore, by placing wrong facts, the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11783 of 2016 (2) dt.18-05-2016 2/2 opposite party no. 2 got the privilege of bail in her favour. Admittedly, neither petitioner is informant nor he represents the State and, therefore, in my view, petitioner does not have any locus standi to file this cancellation petition. However, the order dated 25.07.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28835 of 2013 goes to show that this court granted privilege of bail to opposite party no. 2 taking note of this fact that so-called defalcated amount had already been deposited and, therefore, I do not find any force in this petition.

Accordingly, this cancellation petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U T