Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Arun kumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The High Court held that the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail must be filed before the court that granted the bail, not before the High Court.

Summary

The petitioner, Arun Kumar, sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to six accused (Opposite Parties No.2 to 7) in a criminal case (PS Case No.806 of 2022). The ground alleged was that the accused had suppressed facts regarding their criminal antecedents. The High Court examined whether the petitioner's application before it was appropriate, noting that such a challenge should be made before the court that originally granted the bail. The Court held that the proper remedy lay with the Additional Sessions Judge who granted the bail. Consequently, the petitioner was given liberty to approach that court, and the present application was disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can entertain an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail on the ground of alleged suppression of criminal antecedents.

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • cancellation of bail
  • criminal antecedents
  • jurisdiction
  • procedural remedy

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70834 of 2024
                   Arising out of PS. Case No.-806 Year-2022 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Arun kumar S/o Late Rajendra Chaudhary R/o Vill Near BSNL golambar ra-
                 mashish chowk, Ps- Hajipur sadar, Dist- vaishali

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Vinita Bharti @ Vinita Devi D/o Late Ram Chandra Prasad R/o vill - Naka
                 No. 3, P.S. - Town, Distt. - Darbhanga
           3.    Saroj Devi W/o Late Ram Chandra Prasad R/o vill - Naka No. 3, P.S. -
                 Town, Distt. - Darbhanga
           4.    Sabita Kumari W/o Manoj Kumar R/o vill - Naka No. 3, P.S. - Town, Distt. -
                 Darbhanga
           5.    Manoj Kumar S/o Late Ram Chandra Prasad R/o vill - Naka No. 3, P.S. -
                 Town, Distt. - Darbhanga
           6.    Raj Kumar Bharti S/o Late Ram Chandra Prasad R/o vill - Naka No. 3, P.S. -
                 Town, Distt. - Darbhanga
           7.    Santosh Bharti S/o Late Ram Chandra Prasad R/o vill - Naka No. 3, P.S. -
                 Town, Distt. - Darbhanga

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s:       Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   13-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The present application for cancellation of anticipa-

                   tory bail has been filed against the order dated 06.04.2024

                   passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III,

                   Vaishali at Hajipur in A.B.P. No. 119 of 2024 in connection with

                   Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 806 of 2022 whereby                               and
                         Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70834 of 2024(5) dt.13-01-2026
                                             2/2




           whereunder anticipatory bail was granted to the Opposite Parties

           No. 2 to 7.

                        3. The ground for cancellation that has been urged

           by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is

           confined to suppression of fact with regard to criminal an-

           tecedents of Opposite Party No. 2 to 7. With regard to such

           ground, the desirable course would be to move before the con-

           cerned Court which has granted privilege of anticipatory bail to

           the opposite party no. 2.

                        4. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is granted

           liberty to raise the issues before the Court concerned which has

           granted bail to the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 7.

                        5. With the aforesaid liberty, this application is dis-

           posed off.


                                             (Soni Shrivastava, J)
Vikash/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.