Patna High Court
Dharmveer SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court did not interfere with the trial court’s grant of bail but ordered that bail may be cancelled if the accused fail to cooperate as stipulated.
Summary
Petitioner Dharmveer Singh filed an application seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to three accused (Harsh Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Pramod Kumar) in a case under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner alleged that the accused had made false statements in their bail petition and were not cooperating with the investigation, engaging in further unlawful activities. The High Court observed that the trial court had granted provisional bail conditioned on the accused’s cooperation until charges were framed. The Court directed the trial court to monitor compliance and stated that bail could be cancelled if the accused failed to cooperate, either on an application or suo motu. Finding no merit to interfere with the lower court’s order, the High Court disposed of the petition without cancelling the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the regular bail granted to the accused should be cancelled on the ground of false averments and non‑cooperation with the trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- bail
- cancellation of bail
- false averments
- co‑operation
- IPC
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69470 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2024 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Dharmveer Singh S/o- Lalji Prasad Resident of Village - Katru Bigha, Post
Bisai Bigha, Eknagersrai, District-Nalanda-801301.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Harsh Kumar S/o- Late Birendra Prasad R/o- F.No-204, Sharnam Apt.
Hanuman Sharan Ps- Patliputra, Mainpura Patna
3. Sanjay Kumar S/o- Late Birendra Prasad R/o- F.No-204, Sharnam Apt.
Hanuman Sharan Ps- Patliputra, Mainpura Patna
4. Pramod Kumar S/o- Ram Bahadur Mahto R/o- Sitalpur Ps- Dighwara Dist-
Saran
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Noushad Khan, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mrs. Anita Kumari, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-01-2026 Heard Mr. Noushad Khan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Anita Kumari, learned A.P.P for the
State.
2. The present application has been filed for cancellation
of regular bail granted to the Opposite Parties no. 2 to 4 by the
learned District Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Biharsharif, Nalanda in B.P. No. 775 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025 in
connection with Laheri P.S. Case No. 374 of 2024 instituted under
Sections 406, 420 of I.P.C and 138 of N.I Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
opposite parties have made some false averments in their bail petition
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 69470 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
2/2
filed before the court of the Special Judge while giving details of
their criminal antecedents. It has also been argued that the opposite
parties are not co-operating and are indulging into other unlawful
activities.
4. It appears from the impugned order dated 30.06.2025
that the opposite parties were granted the privilege of provisional bail
till framing of charges on the condition that they would co-operate in
the trial. The learned trial court is, thus, directed to ensure that the
opposite parties no. 2 to 4 co-operate in the trial and also in the
framing of charges and in case of non-cooperation by the opposite
parties, the learned court concerned would be at liberty to take steps
in accordance with law upon an application for cancellation of bail
filed on behalf of the present petitioner and even suo motu.
5. Accordingly, finding no reason to interfere with the
impugned order, the present application is disposed of with the
aforementioned observations.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…