Patna High Court
Narad Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court declined to cancel the bail, finding no direct murder allegation and no compelling circumstances to warrant interference.
Summary
The petitioner, Narad Prasad Singh, sought cancellation of the regular bail granted to the accused, Pritam Kumar Singh, by the District and Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner alleged that Singh had brutally assaulted the informant's son and that the bail order ignored direct allegations of murder against him, also claiming the witness statement was distorted. The High Court examined the bail order and noted that the FIR only alleged assault by Singh, not murder, and that injuries caused by him were not the cause of death. It held that the parameters for cancelling bail are distinct from those for granting bail and require compelling, overwhelming factors, which were absent. Consequently, the court rejected the petition to cancel bail, emphasizing that the bail order's observations should not prejudice the prosecution's case.
Issues considered
- Whether the regular bail granted to the accused can be cancelled on the basis of alleged assault and lack of direct murder allegation.
- Whether the criteria for cancellation of bail require compelling circumstances distinct from those for granting bail.
Subjects
- bail
- cancellation of bail
- regular bail
- assault
- murder allegation
- Criminal Procedure Code
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28551 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2024 Thana- AMDABAD District- Katihar
======================================================
Narad Prasad Singh Son of Late Ram Baran Singh Resident of village -
Bahadurpur, P.S.- Manihari, District - Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pritam Kumar Singh Son of Ajay Kumar Singh Resident of village - Jaduwa
Patar, P.S.- Amdabad, District - Katihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.K. Sinha, Advocate
Md. Musowir, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP of the State.
2. The petitioner has filed the present application
seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to opposite party no.
2 by the learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Katihar
vide order dated 28.02.2025 passed in B.P. No.87 of 2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that there are specific allegations against opposite party no.2 of
brutally assaulting the informant’s son and yet it has been stated
in the order granting bail that there is no direct allegation to
commit the murder against the present petitioner which would
amount to not considering the facts on record in the correct
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28551 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
perspective. It has also been pointed out that the statement of the
witness, Ravi Kumar Singh, who made the direct allegation, has
been distorted and exaggerated.
4. Upon going through the order granting bail to
opposite party no.2, this Court is of the opinion that the learned
Court concerned has taken into account the fact that there is an
attack and counter attack between the parties in litigation
resulting in injuries on both sides. There is no direct allegation
against opposite party no.2 in committing the murder of the
deceased and the statement of the informant also is not specific
regarding commission of murder against opposite party no.2.
From bare perusal of the F.I.R, it appears that specific allegation
of assault in upon co-accused Shiv Kumar Singh, who has
assaulted by means of hasua in the stomach of the deceased
causing laceration of the intestine. So far as opposite party no. 2
is concerned, there is an allegation of inflicting bhala blow
which was inflicted near eye, on account of which injuries are
alleged to have been caused, but same does not appear to be the
cause of death of the deceased.
5. In such view of the matter, this Court find no
reason to differ with the finding and observation of the Court
concerned and his consideration for granting regular bail to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28551 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
opposite party no.2. In absence of any direct allegation in order
to commit the murder of the deceased and keeping in view the
period of custody undergone, no interference is warranted. The
law is settled by way of various judicial pronouncements that
parameters for cancellation of bail are entirely different from
those applicable to the grant of bail, and unless compelling
circumstances and cogent and overwhelming factors are brought
on record, relief with regard to cancellation of bail should not be
granted.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
also in view of law laid down in this regard, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the order granting bail to the opposite
party no.2, as such, application for cancellation of bail is
rejected. However, It is made clear that any observation made in
the order granting bail shall not, in any manner, affect or
prejudice the case of the prosecution.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…