Patna High Court

Sharda DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 5 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court refused to cancel the anticipatory bail, holding that allegations of fraud must be raised before the court that granted bail and that no perversity was found in the order.

Summary

Sharda Devi filed an application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos. 2 and 3 by the Sessions Judge, alleging that the informant never appeared before the court and that the bail order contains fraudulent misrepresentations. The High Court observed that allegations of fraud must be raised before the court that granted the bail and that no perversity was evident in the impugned order. It noted that cancellation of bail is governed by specific parameters which were not satisfied. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the bail order and directed the petitioner to approach the lower court for any grievance. The application was therefore disposed.

Issues considered

Can the High Court cancel an anticipatory bail order on the ground of alleged fraud or mis‑representation by the accused?
Whether the petitioner has any alternative remedy to challenge the bail order?

Subjects

anticipatory bail
fraud
misrepresentation
cancellation of bail
jurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41750 of 2024
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2024 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Sharda Devi Wife of Late Puskar Kumar Sinha Resident of Mohalla - Mahesh
                 Nagar, Road No.- O, Prarthna Niwas, Flat No.- 201, Police Station -
                 Patliputra, District – Patna.


                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Niraj Kumar Son of Madan Mohan Singh Resident of Village - Lahladpur
                 Mohanpur, Police Station - Gaurichak, District - Patna.
           3.    Manoj Kumar Sinha Son of Late Satya Narayan Sinha Resident of Mohalla -
                 Mainpura, Opposite Gate No.- 50, Near Murti Makan Post Office - G.P.O.,
                 Police Station - Patliputra, District - Patna.


                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Amir Alam, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   05-01-2026                     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has filed the present application

                   seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite

                   party nos. 2 and 3 by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna, vide

                   order dated 28.03.2024 passed in A.B.P. No. 1328 of 2025.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

                   that opposite parties have played fraud with the Court concerned

                   and despite the fact that the informant never presented herself

                   physically before the Court, the order granting anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41750 of 2024(4) dt.05-01-2026
                                            2/3




          to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 28.03.2024

          discloses in paragraph nos. 6 and 8 thereof, that the informant

          was physically present before the Court concerned and she had

          declined the fact that any fraud or cheating was committed with

          her.

                       4. It appears that the present ground agitated by the

          learned counsel for the petitioner relates to fraud and mis-

          representation and thus, such ground can only be best agitated

          before the Court concerned which granted the privilege of

          anticipatory bail to the opposite parties.

                       5. Since on the facts and circumstances of the case, as

          is evident from the order impugned, this Court does not find any

          perversity in the said order and is thus not inclined to interfere

          with the same as the law is very well settled that cancellation of

          bail has its own parameters of consideration which requires to

          be fulfilled for making any interference with the order granting

          bail.

                       6. However, in case the petitioner is of the view that

          some fraud or mis-representation was committed by the

          opposite parties, she would be at liberty to approach the Court

          concerned which granted anticipatory bail to opposite parties for

          redressal of her grievances.
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41750 of 2024(4) dt.05-01-2026
                                                          3/3




                                     7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant

                        application stands disposed of.



                                                  (Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…