Patna High CourtCR. MISC./72814/2022dismissed

Dinkar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-12-08Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72814 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2010 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== DINKAR KUMAR Son of Late Pradeep Rai Resident of Village - Pursottampur, P.S.- Rustampur O.P. Raghopur, District - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Sohan Raj @ Sohan Gope Son of Late Chandeshwar Rai Residence of Village - Saidpur, Hulas Jafarabad, P.S.- Raghopur, District - Vaishali. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akash Chaturvedi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-12-2023

1. The present application has been filed for cancellation of bail, granted to the opposite party no. 2 by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 51545 of 2022 on 09.11.2022.

2. Mr. Sriram Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 is a dreaded criminal and has obtained the bail from this Court by suppressing the material facts inasmuch as there was criminal antecedents against the opposite party no. 2, which was not disclosed in the bail application by him.

3. He further submits that after the order of bail, dated 09.11.2022, the opposite party no. 2 started threatening the petitioner and his family in various ways, due to which the petitioner and his family members is having apprehension about their life and property. On

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72814 of 2022(12) dt.08-12-2023 2/3 26.11.2022, the opposite party no. 2 digitally communicated the petitioner and threatened him with dire consequence. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Prashant Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and anr reported in 2010 (14) SCC 496 and submits that criminal antecedents is one of the parameters while granting bail to the accused.

4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that stringent condition has been imposed by this court while granting bail to the opposite party no. 2, which included, that the petitioner would report to the Station House Office, Raghopur Police Station, fortnightly, and shall also furnish his active mobile number to the Station House Officer, Raghopur Police Station. He further submits that the opposite party no. 2 remained in jail since 31.05.2019 i.e. about three and a half years and in the fourth attempt, this Court granted bail to the opposite party no. 2, taking into account the period of custody as well as slow progress of trial.

5. In so far as, disclosure of antecedents of the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72814 of 2022(12) dt.08-12-2023 3/3 submits that six antecedents have already been disclosed in the bail application, but, inadvertently, one case, registered under the arms act, could not be disclosed. This bonafide mistake is on the part of pervikar of the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, at no point of time, informed the Rahopur Police Station regarding the threat being given by the opposite party no. 2 to the petitioner and his family members and before release of the opposite party no. 2 from jail on 24.02.2023, the cancellation of bail application has been filed on 02.12.2022.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.

7. Taking into consideration the rival submissions and the facts that no cogent material has been brought on record regarding misuse of bail by the opposite party no. 2, accordingly, I am of the view that this application, for cancellation of bail, requires no interference by this Court.

8. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ashwani/- U T