Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Shambhu Kumar @ Shambhu Kumar RamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The anticipatory bail order was not cancelled; the application for cancellation was dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Shambhu Kumar, sought cancellation of an anticipatory bail order granted to several accused (including Devta Devi, Shushila Devi, and others) in a criminal case concerning a grievous injury (fracture of nasal bones) to the informant. The petitioner alleged that the court had suppressed facts about the accused's extensive criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the injury. The High Court examined the bail order, noting that the trial court had required the bailors to be close relatives and had recorded the nature of the injury. The Court held that these considerations did not warrant cancellation of the anticipatory bail. It directed the petitioner to approach the court that originally granted the bail for any further remedy, and disposed of the present application without cancelling the bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the accused should be cancelled on the ground of suppression of facts regarding their criminal antecedents
  • Whether the grievous nature of the injury to the informant justifies revocation of anticipatory bail

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • cancellation of bail
  • suppression of facts
  • grievous injury
  • criminal antecedent

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76719 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2025 Thana- MORKAHI District- Khagaria
                 ======================================================
                 Shambhu Kumar @ Shambhu Kumar Ram S/o- Surendra Ram R/v- Sabalpur
                 W.No-7, Ps- Morkahi Dist- Khagaria
                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.    Devta Devi w/o- Binod Ram R/v- Sabalpur Po- Marar Ps- Morkahi Dist-
                 Khagaria
           3.    Shushila Devi W/o- Binod Ram R/v- Sabalpur Po- Marar Ps- Morkahi Dist-
                 Khagaria
           4.    Chano Ram S/o- Late Kaleshwar Ram R/v- Sabalpur Po- Marar Ps- Morkahi
                 Dist- Khagaria
           5.    Rajesh Ram S/o- Chano Ram R/v- Sabalpur Po- Marar Ps- Morkahi Dist-
                 Khagaria
           6.    Binod Ram S/o- Chano Ram R/v- Sabalpur Po- Marar Ps- Morkahi Dist-
                 Khagaria
           7.     Subodh Ram S/o- Chano Ram R/v- Sabalpur Po- Marar Ps- Morkahi Dist-
                  Khagaria
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   06-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The present application has been filed for

                   cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the learned In-

                   charge Sessions Judge, Khagaria vide A.B.P. No. 1067 of 2025

                   dated 08.09.2025 passed in Morkahi P.S. Case No. 125 of 2025.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

                   that there is suppression of fact with regard to the criminal
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76719 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       history of the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 as they all have criminal

                       antecedent to the extent that some of them even have more than

                       one criminal antecedent. It has also been submitted that the

                       learned court has also not considered the fact that the injury

                       received by the informant was grievous in nature.

                                    4. Upon perusal of the order granting bail, it is clear

                       that the learned court has granted bail asking the bailors to be

                       close relatives and also to verify that the informant had received

                       a fracture of B/L Nasal bones with soft tissue swelling. This

                       Court does not find such consideration a ground sufficient to

                       cancel the bail of the opposite parties. However, so far as the

                       suppression of fact is concerned, the desirable course for the

                       petitioner would be in this regard to move before the court

                       which had granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

                                    5. With such liberty, the present application is

                       disposed of.



                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-

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.