Anubhav Kumar @ Abhinav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.92040 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2025 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Anubhav Kumar @ Abhinav Kumar Son of Jaikishore Yadav Resident Of Village- Bhatgawa Police Stiaion- Chausa Distirct- Madhepura Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Aditya Jha @ Aditya Kumar son of Soni Jha Resident Of Village- Bhatgawa Police Stiaion- Chausa Distirct- Madhepura Bihar 3.
Prahlad Yadav @ Prahlad Kumar son of Niranjan Yadav Resident Of Village- Bhatgawa Police Stiaion- Chausa Distirct- Madhepura Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ramendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Prem Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The present application has been filed seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to Opposite Parties vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in B.P. No. 2153/2025 in connection with Chausa P.S. Case No. 235 of 2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 308(5), 103(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that O.P. nos. 2 and 3 have concealed that they have got one criminal antecedent and the case was lodged by victim himself against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92040 of 2025(3) dt.15-07-2026 2/2 six named accused persons including these two opposite parties just before 21 days of his brutal assassination by them and others. It is next submitted that opposite parties are influential persons and they may tamper with the evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting cancellation of bail, hence, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order passed by the court below.
5. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T