JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is the informant of Narpatganj P.S. case No. 281 of 2019 registered on 08.05.2019, disclosing commission of the offences punishable under Section 302/120B and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2 Opposite party No. 2 is one of the sixty-six persons named in the F.I.R. who allegedly participated as a member of a mob which killed informant’s father and brother. The opposite party No. 2 approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) by making an application giving rise to Cr. Misc. No. 43593 of 2019, that was allowed by an order dated 16.07.2019 taking into account the submission made on his behalf that the main allegation was against Ramchandra Das (the co-accused) and the petitioner was implicated falsely, he being the Mukhia of the concerned Gram Panchayat.

3 This application has been filed under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party No. 2 mainly on the ground that he had concealed the fact that anticipatory bail application of similarly circumstanced nine accused persons was rejected by an order dated 05.07.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41562 of 2019. Subsequently, this Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of ten other co-accused persons by an order dated 31.07.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47611 of 2019. While rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused by the said order dated 31.07.2019 in Cr. Misc. No. 47611 of 2019, the Court noticed that an earlier order of the Court dated 05.07.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41562 of 2019 was not brought to the Court’s notice while passing the order in case of the opposite party No. 2 dated 16.07.2019. Two other applications seeking anticipatory bail were rejected by this Court by orders dated 28.11.2019 and 21.10.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 50907 of 2019 and 46903 of 2019 respectively, copies of which have been brought on record by way of Annexures- 5 and 6 to this application.

4. The opposite party No. 2 has entered appearance after service of notice and has filed a counter affidavit. The opposite party No. 2 is relying on the orders dated 18.01.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26180 of 2020, order dated 17.01.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 72118 of 2019, and order dated 08.12.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5530 of 2021, whereby similarly circumstanced co-accused persons named in the F.I.R., who also had allegedly formed the mob have been allowed anticipatory bail. The opposite party No. 2 is also relying on an order dated 19.01.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34679 of 2020, whereby the main accused (Ramchandra Das) has been granted regular bail by this Court.

5. I have heard Ms. Shilpi Keshri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shardanand Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, and Mr. Choubey Jawahar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Bihar.

6. Ms. Shilpi Keshri, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the privilege of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No. 2 by this Court deserves to be withdrawn for the simple reason that similarly circumstanced co-accused persons had been refused such privilege, which fact was not brought to this Court’s notice. She has argued that had it been within this Court’s knowledge that other co-accused persons have been denied the privilege of anticipatory bail by the order dated 05.07.2019, this Court would not have allowed such privilege to opposite party No. 2. She submits that subsequently, this Court declined to grant anticipatory bail keeping in mind the fact that other co-accused persons had been refused such privilege. She accordingly contends in the aforesaid circumstance, that this Court should cancel the privilege of bail granted to opposite party No. 2 in exercise of power under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. She has also argued that the gravity of the offence alleged against the opposit