Patna High Court
USHA DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that there is no sufficient cause to cancel the bail granted to accused No.2.
Summary
The petitioner, Usha Devi, sought cancellation of the regular bail granted to accused No.2 in a kidnapping case involving the informant's son, who disappeared on 10‑08‑2020 amid a property dispute. The High Court examined the FIR and the bail order, noting that the investigation had produced only suspicion against the accused and no concrete evidence of his involvement. It observed that the accused had already been interrogated in custody and that the petitioner herself had been in custody since 04‑06‑2021. The Court reiterated that cancellation of bail requires cogent or overwhelming circumstances, which were absent in the present case. Consequently, the application for cancellation of bail was rejected, with directions for the investigating officer to continue efforts to locate the missing victim and for monitoring by the Superintendent of Police.
Issues considered
- Whether the bail granted to accused No.2 should be cancelled on the basis of mere suspicion.
- What evidentiary threshold is required to interfere with an order of bail.
Subjects
- bail
- cancellation of bail
- kidnapping
- property dispute
- suspicion
- investigation
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57412 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-338 Year-2020 Thana- PATNA CITY CHOWK District- Patna
======================================================
USHA DEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE BHAGWAT MALAKAR, WIFE OF
SRI SHANKAR BHAGAT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- JANGALI
PRASAD LANE, NALA PAR, THANA- CHOWK, DISTRICT- PATNA
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. SHASHI KUMAR@MITHU KUMAR SONS OF SUKHARI MALI AND
RITA DEVI RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- JANGALI PRASAD LANE,
NALA PAR, THANA- CHOWK, DISTRICT- PATNA
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushal Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP of the State.
2. The petitioner has filed the present application
seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to opposite party no.
2 by the learned 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Patna
City vide order dated 12.07.2021 passed in B.P. No.659 of 2021.
3. The matter relates to kidnapping of the informant’s
son who is said to have left the house on 10.08.2020 and
thereafter became traceless on account of the fact that accused
persons including the opposite party no.2 are the gotiya of the
petitioner (informant) who are having dispute with regard to
property. There is a suspicion raised against the opposite party
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57412 of 2021(4) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
no.2 of being involved in the said offence.
4. Upon perusal of the order granting bail to the
opposite party no.2, it would appear that F.I.R has been lodged
against opposite party no.2 and others upon suspicion and the
order granting bail also indicates that there is no specific
allegation against this O.P. No.2 of being involved in the said
offence. After going through the case diary, learned Court
concerned has reached a conclusion that the materials collected
during investigation are also confined to suspicion existing
against the opposite party no.2 and no other cogent material has
been collected to show the complicity of the opposite party no.2
in the alleged offence. It has also been considered that the
petitioner was in custody since 04.06.2021. It also appears that
custodial interrogation of opposite party no.2 has already been
done and in a case, which is based only on suspicion, on account
of a property dispute between the agnates, no useful purpose
would be served by canceling the bail, already granted to the
opposite party no.2, unless some cogent and overwhelming
circumstances exists with regard to misuse of bail etc.
5. Law is settled that for consideration of a case for
cancellation of bail, parameters are totally on a different level
than that of grant of bail requiring very cogent or overwhelming
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57412 of 2021(4) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
circumstances for warranting interference, this Court finds no
sufficient cause to interfere with the order granting bail to the
opposite party no.2 after staying in custody. In such view of the
matter, the application for cancellation of bail stands rejected.
6. However, considering the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim of this case has
still not been traced, the Investigating Officer of this case is
directed to take all necessary steps for recovering the victim and
the matter shall be monitored by the Superintendent of Police,
Patna City, East division and further, in case any co-operation is
required from the opposite party no.2, she would make herself
available and in case of any non-cooperation on her behalf, the
petitioner shall be at liberty to file a further application for
cancellation of bail.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…