Patna High Court
Shubham DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court dismissed the application for cancellation of bail, finding no sufficient grounds to revoke the bail previously granted.
Summary
Shubham Devi filed an application seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to Sintu Mandal in a criminal miscellaneous case, alleging that he was misusing the bail privilege by threatening her and her family. The High Court examined whether such allegations, without supporting material or specific bail conditions, constitute sufficient grounds for bail cancellation. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, the Court held that cancellation requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as interference with justice or abuse of the bail concession. Since no specific condition was imposed on the bail and the petitioner’s claim was vague, the Court found no basis to cancel the bail. Consequently, the application for cancellation was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to approach the appropriate court for any further grievance.
Issues considered
- What constitutes sufficient grounds for the cancellation of regular bail in a non‑bailable case?
- Whether an allegation of threat, without material evidence, can justify cancellation of bail.
Subjects
- bail
- cancellation of bail
- threat
- Supreme Court precedent
- Criminal Procedure Code
- regular bail
- non‑bailable offence
- court discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41924 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2023 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Purnia
======================================================
Shubham Devi Son of Late Pankaj Kumar Mandal Village- Badhawa, Ps-
Mirganj, Dist- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sintu Mandal @ Sentu Mandal Son of Late Subodh Mandal Village-
Badhawa, Ps- Mirganj, Dist- Purnea
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
6 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 07.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35171 of
2024.
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.41924 of 2025(6) 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 07.05.2024 in Cr.
Misc. No. 35171 of 2024, 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.41924 of 2025(6) 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.