Patna High Court
Shyamkuri DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The bail order was not cancelled; the petition was dismissed and the trial was directed to be concluded within three months.
Summary
The petitioner sought cancellation of the regular bail granted to Raushan Patel (Opposite Party No.2) in a case arising from FIR No.459/2023, arguing that a similarly situated co-accused, Mukesh Kumar, had been denied bail and that Patel's withdrawal and re‑filing of bail applications demonstrated misconduct. The respondent State contended that Patel's case differed because of specific allegations in the FIR and his clean criminal record. The High Court observed that the facts of Patel's case were substantially similar to those of Mukesh Kumar and noted the disreputable conduct of withdrawing a bail application from one court and filing another after two days. However, the Court also considered that the trial was at an advanced stage, with only official witnesses yet to be examined, and that no breach of bail conditions had been shown. Balancing these factors, the Court declined to interfere with the bail order, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within three months, and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the regular bail granted to the opposite party No.2 should be cancelled on the ground of similar co‑accused being denied bail.
- Whether the withdrawal and re‑filing of bail applications by the opposite party constitutes misconduct warranting cancellation of bail.
- Whether the advanced stage of the trial and lack of breach of bail conditions affect the decision to cancel bail.
Subjects
- regular bail
- cancellation of bail
- withdrawal of bail application
- trial stage
- judicial discretion
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56871 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-459 Year-2023 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda
======================================================
Shyamkuri Devi wife of Sri Nawal Prasad Village- Ratanpura Po- Daruara Ps-
Noorsarai Dist- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Raushan Patel son of Ram Naresh Prasad Village- Ratanpura Po- Daruara
Ps- Npprsarao Dost- Nalanda
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel appearing for opposite party
no. 2.
2. The present application is for cancellation of
regular bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 by an order dated
08.07.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge
Nalanda at Biharsharif in regular bail application no. 509 of
2024, arising out of Noorsarai P.S. Case No.459 of 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised
any grounds of violation of the bail order or misuse of the bail
order but has assailed the said order on the ground that the
regular bail application of similarly situated co-accused Mukesh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56871 of 2024(3) dt.29-01-2026
2/4
Kumar was rejected up to the High Court vide Annexure-P/3
and yet the Court of the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to
grant bail to the opposite party no. 2 on erroneous consideration
of facts and circumstances. It has also been argued that the
conduct of the opposite party no. 2 of withdrawing his earlier
bail application on 01.05.2024 from the Court of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Biharsharif at
Nalanda in regular bail application no. 486 of 2024 and filing
another bail application only after two days of such withdrawal
i.e., on 03.05.2024, as stated in paragraph-9 of his present
petition is also to be viewed with seriousness and deprecated.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party
no. 2 defends the order granting bail to the opposite party no. 2
on the ground that the case of the petitioner is not exactly on
similar footing inasmuch as, in the First Information Report
there is a specific allegation that it was co-accused Mukesh
Kumar, who had taken away the jewellery and cash and it is also
a fact which has been taken into consideration by the order
dated 08.07.2024 that the co-accused Mukesh Kumar is the
nephew of the husband of the informant and there is a dispute
with regard to land between the parties. It has also been
submitted that there is no concealment of the fact that the earlier
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56871 of 2024(3) dt.29-01-2026
3/4
bail application was dismissed as withdrawn and the opposite
party no. 2 having no criminal antecedent is also one of the
considerations.
5. Upon perusal of the document on record, this Court
finds that the case of the opposite party no. 2 is almost similar to
that of co-accused Mukesh Kumar and this Court also takes
judicial notice of the conduct of the opposite party no. 2 of
withdrawing the application from one court and filing the same
after two days, which is taken up by a different court and such
conduct of the opposite party no. 2 is strongly deprecated.
6. However, a report with regard to stage of the trial
had earlier been called for and the same has been received
indicating that the stage of the case has now advanced and the
examination of witnesses is going on and it has also been
informed by the counsels that only the official witnesses being
Doctor and the Investigating Officer is now remaining to be
examined.
7. Taking the entire conspectus of the case into
consideration and with a view to striking a balance upon the
various factors to be considered for the purposes of cancellation
of bail, this Court is of the opinion that the order granting bail
has at least imposed stringent condition on the opposite party
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56871 of 2024(3) dt.29-01-2026
4/4
no. 2 which appears to be complied as no misuse or violation of
the condition of bail has been pleaded. In such view of the
matter, considering the advanced stage of the case where only
the official witnesses remained to be examined, this Court
would not interfere with the liberty already granted to the
opposite party no. 2 by an order dated 08.07.2024, but
nevertheless would direct the Court of learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Nalanda, Biharsharif, in seisin of
the matter to conclude the trial, preferably, within a period of
three months.
8. With such observations, the present application
stands disposed of.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…