Gobardhan Paswan @ Govardhan Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66563 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14097 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Gobardhan Paswan @ Govardhan Paswan Son of Late Munshi Paswan, Resident of Village- Khoja Imli, Kanhaiya Nagar, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh Son of Sri Jagdish Prasad Singh, Resident Of Behind Aprajita Apartment, Bhuthnath Road, Ps- Agamkuan, District- Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-11-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present Cr. Misc. Application has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Patna vide order dated 05.08.2023 passed in A.B.P. No.3296 of 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court concerned has not called the expert opinion with respect to signature of the complainant on the compromise petition and granted the bail and on this point, learned counsel submits that the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by the learned Court concerned may be cancelled.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66563 of 2023(2) dt.17-11-2025 2/2 Court concerned has passed the order dated 05.08.2023 on merit and no case is made out by the petitioner for cancellation of bail of the opposite party no.2

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the learned Court concerned considering the materials on record passed the said order dated 05.08.2023 and granted anticipatory bail to the opposite party no.2.

6. The said order dated 05.08.2023 is not unjustified or illegal or perverse order which requires interference by this Court. Law is well settled that cancellation of bail is distinct from revocation of an order granting bail. It is not alleged or substantiated in the present case that opposite party no.2 has misused the liberty granted to him such as tampering of evidence or threatening the witness. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no valid ground is made out by the petitioner to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 at this stage. Accordingly, the present Cr. Misc. Application stands dismissed.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) Ritik/- U T