Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 5760
PATNA HIGH COURT
Sunil Dutta Mishra, J
Ranjeet Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59070 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Hridayal Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
Cancellation of bail requires evidence of misconduct or supervening circumstances; absence of such leads to dismissal of the petition.
Headnote:The present Criminal Miscellaneous petition was filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Opposite Parties 2 to 7. The petitioner argued that these Opposite Parties concealed their criminal antecedents. The court held there is no evidence of misconduct and thus, dismissed the petition, maintaining the bail.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER
3 16-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present Criminal Miscellaneous petition has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to O.P. Nos. 2 to 7, vide order dated 06.06.2022 passed in A.B.P. No. 659 of 2022, arising out of Karpi (Sahar Telpa) P.S. Case No. 197 of 2020 by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jehanabad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2022 passed in A.B.P. No. 659 of 2022. Main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 have concealled their criminal antecedents. He submits that on the aforesaid ground the bail granted to O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 may be cancelled.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that from perusal of the impugned order dated 06.06.2022, it appears that O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 were granted bail giving benefit under Section 41 (A) of Cr. P.C. Charge-sheet has already been submitted and also cognizance has been taken against them. He further submits that although criminal antecedent has not been disclosed, the trial is in progress and there is no allegation of misusing of the liberty of bail granted to O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 and at this stage, it is not in the interest of justice to cancel the bail granted to them.
5. Law is well settled that cancellation of bail is distinct from revocation of an order granting bail. If the order granting bail is perverse one or passed on irrelevant material, it can be annulled by the Superior Court. There is also a distinction between the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order and cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or certain supervening circumstances warrant such cancellation. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, there is no allegation of misconduct by O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 after getting benefit of bail. No case is made out for cancellation of bail of O.P. Nos. 2 to 7. Accordingly, this case is dismissed.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.)
