Patna High Court
Ramchandra MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no violation of bail conditions and no illegality in the trial court’s order refusing bail cancellation.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramchandra Mahto, filed an application under the inherent jurisdiction of the Patna High Court seeking to quash the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑II, Samastipur, which had rejected his request to cancel the bail bonds of accused Nos. 2‑4. The petitioner alleged that the accused, after being granted anticipatory bail, committed an assault and other offences under Sections 447, 341, 323, 504, 354, 379, 506 and 34 of the IPC, thereby violating bail conditions. The trial court, however, held that the accused had not breached any bail conditions during the investigation and had been regularly appearing before the court. The High Court examined the trial court’s reasoning and found no illegality or error in its assessment. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that cancellation of the bail bonds was not warranted.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused persons violated the conditions of the anticipatory bail granted to them.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to cancel the bail bonds of the accused.
- Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the trial court’s order.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 379, 447, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail cancellation
- violation of bail conditions
- inherent jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
- High Court review
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4109 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-520 Year-2019 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
Samastipur
======================================================
Ramchandra Mahto, Late Raghunandan Mahto, R/o- JItwarpur Chouth, PS-
Mufassil Samastipur, Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bibi Hasina Khatoon, Widow of Late Abdul Aziz Village- Jitwarpur Chouth,
Ward No-8 PS- Muffasil Samastipur, Dist- Samastipur
3. Md. Naushad @ Raju, Md. Nijamuddin @ Md. Ali Village- Jitwarpur
Chouth, Ward No-8 PS- Muffasil Samastipur, Dist- Samastipur
4. Md. Azad, Md. Nijamuddin @ Md. Ali Village- Jitwarpur Chouth, Ward No-
8 PS- Muffasil Samastipur, Dist- Samastipur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by the
petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court for quashing the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Samastipur in
Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 520 of 2019 corresponding
to R.N. No.2777/2023, T.R. No.1819/2023 whereby and
whereunder the application of the petitioner dated 03.10.2020
for cancellation of bail bond of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4109 of 2024(2) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
opposite party Nos.2 to 4 after being granted anticipatory bail in
the present case had thereafter again committed an offence of
assault with the petitioner's side for which one Samastipur
Mufassil P.S. Case No. 410 of 2020 was lodged for the offences
under Sections 447, 341, 323, 504, 354, 379, 506/34 of the IPC.
It has been submitted that opposite party nos.2 to 4 have
violated the conditions of bail and have committed another
offence and therefore their bail bond ought to have been
cancelled, however, the learned Trial Court without appreciating
such facts, has dismissed the application for cancellation of bail
bond of the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the state and also upon perusal of the
impugned order, it appears that the learned Trial court has taken
into account that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 /accused persons
have not violated the conditions of the bail they were granted
during the stage of investigation.
5. It has also been recorded that cognizance has
already been taken and the accused persons, i.e., opposite party
nos.2 to 4 have been regularly appearing either in person or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4109 of 2024(2) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
through their advocates and therefore, the cancellation of bail
bond would not be proper.
6. From the perusal of the aforesaid, I do not find any
illegality in the order impugned.
7. The present application is without merit and as
such, the application stands rejected.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…