This order dismisses the petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party no.2. The court found no reasonable or convincing ground to entertain the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9926 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2022 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
SHIV KUMAR SAH Son of Late Nafri Sah Resident of Village - Shahpur, P.S.- Jamui, District – Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Parties.
======================================================
Appearance :
Mr. Akash Raj
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akash Raj For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER
4 05-07-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
Today a counter affidavit has been filed in Court after
serving a copy on learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let it be kept on record.
The present application has been filed for cancellation
of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 05.12.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No.46396 of 2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.2 has mala fidely suppressed his criminal antecedent while filing and arguing his bail application. He further submits that opposite party no.2, after securing anticipatory bail, threatened the informant and his family members to withdraw the case. In buttress of his submission, he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9926 of 2023(4) dt.05-07-2023 2/2
has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nityanand Rai Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2005) 4 SCC 178 and Ramcharan Vs. State of M.P . reported in 2 004 (13) SCC 617 . Accordingly, it is prayed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to opposite party no.2.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the mistake regarding non-mentioning of the criminal antecedent is not intentional, rather it was occurred due to bona fide miscommunication between the deponent of the case and the conducting lawyer. Regarding other allegations made in the application, he submits that the entire allegations are concocted and imaginary only with a view to make out a case for cancellation of the bail granted to opposite party no.2. Lastly, he submits that the application filed by the petitioner has no leg to stand and the same may be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the case records, I do not find any reasonable/ convincing ground to entertain this application.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
Trivedi/- U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail granted to opposite party no.2 should be cancelled due to alleged non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and threats.
Evaluation of the bona fides regarding the non-mentioning of criminal antecedents during the bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nityanand Rai Vs. State of BiharReferred¶25
(2005) 4 SCC 178 · Who else cites this
Ramcharan Vs. State of M.PReferred¶25
2004 (13) SCC 617 · Who else cites this
Shiv Kumar Sah
The State of Bihar
Navin Kumar
Anjani Kumar Sharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
