Raushan Siddiquee v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85503 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2023 Thana- BARHARIA District- Siwan ====================================================== Raushan Siddiquee Son of Rahumuddin Siddiquee RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - PARARAUNA POLICE STATION - BARHRIA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Jawed Alam Sah @ Jabed Alam @ Lal babu @ Lal Babu Sah Son of Usuf Akhtar Sah Resident of Village - Parsawa Tola, P.S.- Barhariya, DistrictSiwan. 3.

Md. Zisan @ Jisan Raza Son of Md. Ali Resident of Village - Parsawa Tola, P.S.- Barhariya, District- Siwan.

4.

Md. kaif Ali @ Md. Kaif Son of Jawed Alam Sah @ Jabed Alam @ Lal Babu @ lal Babu Sah Resident of Village - Parsawa Tola, P.S.- Barhariya, District- Siwan.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Najeeb Ahmad, Advocate Mr. Thakur Brajesh Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 :

Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State and the learned Senior counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 to 4.

2. This application has been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 vide order dated 27.07.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 35960 of 2023.

3. The matter travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85503 of 2023(5) dt.20-07-2026 2/2 Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the impugned order. However, the petitioner has again filed the present application for cancellation of bail on the ground that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been initiated against O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 on the date they were granted anticipatory bail. It is submitted that this fact was not mentioned in the S.L.P.; therefore, the petitioner was granted liberty to raise this ground.

4. I see no ground to interfere in the present application, as the petitioner cannot be permitted to move repeatedly for cancellation of bail.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

6. The trial is directed to be expedited.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T