Patna High Court
Shubham DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances; mere unsubstantiated allegations of threat are insufficient, so the bail cancellation application was dismissed.
Summary
Shubham Devi filed an application seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to Chandan Kumar, alleging that he was misusing the bail privilege by threatening her and her family. The High Court examined the claim in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, which requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances for bail cancellation. The Court noted that no specific conditions were imposed on the bail and that the petitioner’s allegations were unsupported by material evidence. Consequently, the Court held that vague or general allegations do not constitute a breach of bail conditions. The application for cancellation of bail was therefore dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to approach a competent court for any further relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the regular bail granted to the accused can be cancelled on the basis of alleged threats without supporting material.
- What constitutes sufficient grounds for cancellation of bail under Indian law.
Subjects
- bail
- cancellation of bail
- regular bail
- threat
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
- non-bailable offence
- misuse of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31903 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2023 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Purnia
======================================================
Shubham Devi W/O - Late Pankaj Kumar Mandal R/O Vill.- Baghaua, P.S.-
Mirganj, Dist.- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chandan Kumar S/O Bedanand Mandal R/O Vill.- Baghaua, P.S.- Mirganj,
Dist.- Purnea.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
7 09-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been filed for
cancellation of regular bail granted to the opposite party No. 2
by order dated 09.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19 of 2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
opposite party No. 2 has started misusing the privilege of bail by
threatening the petitioner and her family members.
4. This Court finds no ground for cancellation of
regular bail in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dolat Ram and others Vs. State
of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, wherein in
paragraph no. 4, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31903 of 2025(7) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
at the initial stage and the cancellation of
bail so granted, have to be considered
and dealt with on different basis. Very
cogent and overwhelming circumstances
are necessary for an order directing the
cancellation of the bail, already granted.
The grounds for cancellation of bail,
broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive)
are: interference or attempt to interfere
with the due course of administration of
justice or evasion or attempt to evade the
due course of justice or abuse of the
concession granted to the accused in any
manner.”
5. It is also relevant to note that while granting regular
bail to the opposite party no. 2 by order dated 09.01.2025 in Cr.
Misc. No. 19 of 2025, no specific condition was imposed thus in
absence of any such express condition, a mere allegation of
threat, without any supporting material, cannot by itself be
treated as a violation of bail conditions so as to justify
cancellation of bail. Cancellation of bail cannot be resorted to
on vague or general allegations unless it is shown that the
accused has deliberately abused the liberty granted by the Court
or has acted in a manner prejudicial to the fair administration of
justice.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31903 of 2025(7) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
6. The present cancellation application stands
dismissed.
7. If so advised, the petitioner may file an application
before the concerned Court with a competent jurisdiction for
redressal of her grievance.
8. If any such application is filed on behalf of the
petitioner, same shall be disposed of expeditiously by the court
of competent jurisdiction.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.