IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74201 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-813 Year-2023 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ======================================================

Nirmal Sah Son of Ishwar Dayal Sah Resident of Village and Post- Baraki Kharari, PS- Karaghar, District- Rohtas, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Anil Kumar Son of Shiv Kumar Mahto Resident of Village- Rasulpur, P.S.-

Maner, Distt.- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dineshwar Pandey For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh For the O.P No.2 : None ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

7 11-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. However, none has appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2.

2. This application has been filed under section 439(2)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the cancellation of the bail bonds furnished by the O.P. No. 2 in light of the order dated

18.01.2024 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 1808 of 2024.

3. It has been informed to this Court that Sri Rupesh Kumar, who was earlier appearing for the O.P. No. 2 has passed away.

4. Md. Ejaz Akhtar has no vakalatnama on behalf of the O.P. No. 2, and he further states that he had informed the O.P. No. 2, but the O.P. No. 2 has not executed a vakalatnama.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh vs Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 has held as under:

13. It is also required to be borne in mind that when a prayer is made for the cancellation of grant of bail cogent and overwhelming circumstances must be present and bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial. This proposition draws support from the Judgment of this Court in Daulat Ram and others v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693 and xxx v. State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511.

14. This Court in Daulat Ram’s case has held that the cancellation of the bail has to be dealt on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail. It has also been held that there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are non- conducive to the fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail and this principle has been reiterated time and again and more recently in the Judgment of Ms. X v. State of Telangana (supra).

6. It is trite law that the conduct of the accused who has been enlarged on bail and his unwillingness to cooperate in the investigation by employing dilatory tactics are relevant compelling reasons for this Court to consider canceling the bail granted to the accused-opposite Party No.2. It is equally settled position that bail once granted can not be mechanically canceled, however the accused who is resorting to dilatory tactics to protract the investigation.

7. From the records, it appears that the O.P. No. 2 after being granted bail by this Court by order dated 18.01.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 1808 of 2024, is trying to delay the proceedings.

8. A report received from the Superintendent of Police, Kaimur (Bhabua) also states that the accused persons including the Opposite Party No.2 are not cooperating with the investigation.

9. The conduct of the Opposite Party no. 2 indicates a tendency on his part to misuse the bail granted to him, since not only is the accused-opposite party no.2 not complying with the specific conditions on which his bail was granted by not cooperating with the investigation, but also a callous approach has been adopted by him before this Court.

10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for cancellation of bail bonds furnished by the O.P.

No. 2 is allowed.

11. Accord