Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

[2026:JHHC:12893]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 50 of 2025

Sanjay Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Ravindra Prasad, resident of Mitti Ki Maya, Professor Colony, Hirapur, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand. 2. Munni Devi, aged about 45 years, wife of Late Rajendra Sao, resident of Bekarbandh, Behind Mishtan Bhandar, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶6

..... … Opposite Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate. : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ------

¶10

05/ 01.05.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶11

learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the O.P. No. 2 by order dated 10.04.2024, passed in A.B.A. No. 1170 of 2024 by this court, in connection with C.P. Case No. 1163 of 2021, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the O.P. No. 2, on the submission of learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 that a sum of Rs. 80,000/- has been returned by the O.P. No. 2 to the petitioner and further it has been pointed out that the remaining admitted amount will be returned in six months from the date of the order, however, the same has not been returned as yet. He next submits that pursuant to the notice issued in this case, she has not appeared in

¶14

-1-

¶15

[2026:JHHC:12893]

¶16

this case. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail of O.P. No. 2 may kindly be cancelled.

¶17

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the matter is arising out of a complaint case and anticipatory bail has already been granted and this court has enlarged the O.P. No. 2 not on such condition, that was only the submission of learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

¶18

By order dated 10.04.2024, passed in A.B.A. No. 1170 of 2024, the anticipatory bail was granted to the O.P. No. 2 and this court has not put any condition of paying the amount for the grant of anticipatory bail and it was only the submission of learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

¶19

It is well settled that the bail can be cancelled on the

¶20

following grounds:-

¶21

“(i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity,

¶22

(ii) interferes with the course of investigation,

¶23

(iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses,

¶24

(iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation,

¶25

(v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country,

¶26

(vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,

¶27

(vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc.”

¶28

The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It is

¶29

required to be kept in mind that the rejection of bail on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order. It is trite law that cancellation of

¶30

-2-

¶31

[2026:JHHC:12893]

¶32

bail can be done, in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail.

¶33

In the case of Raghubir Singh Versus State of Bihar , reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481 , the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that it is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice.

¶34

In view of the above facts and upon going through the order, granting anticipatory bail to the O.P. No. 2, it transpires that this court has not put any condition of paying the amount for granting anticipatory bail. As such, no case of interference is made out. accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶35

Since the main case is still pending before the learned court, the parties can take all the grounds in the pending case.

¶36

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶37

Dated:-01.05.2026 Amitesh/-

¶38

-3-

Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Mandal Alias Ajay Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jishesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Puitu Lohra Vs State of Jharkhand

Jagmohan Mehta Alias Jagmohan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mrs.Sarmistha Das Alias Sarmistha Lahiry @ Sarmishta Lahiri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anjan Gope Vs State of Jharkhand