Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.462 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-395 Year-2018 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna ====================================================== RAJ KUMAR @ RAJ KUMAR RAY Son of Awadh Kishor Ray Resident of Village- Naktadiyara Dinapur Cum Khagaul, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Manoj Rai @ Manohar Rai @ Manoj Kumar Son of Ravindra Rai @ Ravindra Prasad Resident of Village- Nakta Diayara, P.S.- Digha, DistrictPatna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Advocate Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Dinesh Singh, APP Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2.
This application has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10716 of 2019 in connection with Digha P.S. No. 395 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim girl has yet not been recovered and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.462 of 2020(3) dt.22-07-2026 2/2 allegations against the opposite party no.2 is of kidnapping the victim girl.
4.
I have perused the impugned order granting bail to the opposite party no. 2 and the same is dated 26.04.2019 and more than seven years have elapsed since then. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to raise any sufficient ground for cancellation of bail of the opposite party no.2 and there is no supervening cirumstances has been brought on record to show that the opposite party no.2 has misused the privilege of bail or violated any of the condition imposed by the Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
5.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
6.
The petitioner may file an appropriate application before an appropriate police authority/Court for the recovery of the victim girl.
(Sandeep Kumar, J) shalini/- U T