Patna High Court
Sunil Tiwari @ Sunil TiwaryversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The order cancelling the anticipatory bail was quashed as it was passed without proper consideration of the bail conditions and post‑bail conduct.
Summary
The petitioners Sunil Tiwari, Chhotu Tiwary and Prem Shankar Tiwary were granted anticipatory bail on 14 January 2020 in connection with offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 363 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. On 23 July 2024 the Additional Sessions Judge, Saran, cancelled that bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 214 of 2022, alleging seriousness of the allegations and a genuine fear of the informant. The petitioners filed an application before the Patna High Court seeking quash of the cancellation, contending that they had not violated any bail conditions and that the cancellation was made without a judicious assessment. The State opposed the application, asserting the cancellation was lawful. The High Court, after examining the record, held that there was no post‑bail incident or breach of conditions and that the trial court had not applied a proper mind, thereby quashing the order of bail cancellation. Consequently, the petitioner's application was allowed and the anticipatory bail remained in force.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate standard for cancelling anticipatory bail when the accused have not breached any bail conditions?
- Whether the trial court erred in cancelling the anticipatory bail without a proper assessment of post‑bail conduct.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 341, 342, 363, 364
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail cancellation
- Indian Penal Code
- high court
- quash order
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78053 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2019 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran
======================================================
1. Sunil Tiwari @ Sunil Tiwary Son of Kunj Bihari Tiwari R/O-Village-
Bahuara, P.O.- Lalganj, Police Station- Dokti, District -Balia (Uttar Pradesh)
2. Chhotu Tiwary @ Akhilelsh Tiwary Son of Kunj Bihari Tiwari R/O-Village-
Bahuara, P.O.- Lalganj, Police Station- Dokti, District -Balia (Uttar Pradesh)
3. Prem Shankar Tiwary Son of Tej Narayan Tiwary R/O-Village- Laxman
Chhapra, P.O.- Karan Chhapra, Police Station- Dokti, District -Balia (Uttar
Pradesh)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sima Yadav Wife of Binod Yadav Resident of Village- Chand Diyar Chowki,
P.S.- Chand Diyar Chowki, District- Balia (Uttar Pradesh)
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bashishtha Narayan Mishra, Advocate
Mr.Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 10-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. Nobody appears on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 despite
the appearance through vakalatnama.
3. The present application has been filed for quashing
the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge-5th , Saran at Chapra in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 214
of 2022, whereby the learned trial court has cancelled the
anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78053 of 2024(4) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
14.01.2020 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 3499 of
2019 arising out of Manjhi P.S. Case No. 349 of 2019 registered
for the offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 363 and 364
of the I.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2024,
whereby the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners have
been cancelled by the said order. He further submits that the
petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by a well-reasoned
order on 14.01.2020 and it is also not the case of the prosecution
that the petitioner has misused the privilege of bail thereafter. It
has next been submited that an application was filed before the
learned trial court alleging therein that certain aspects were
overlooked by the court while granting bail to the petitioners
which were serious in nature and therefore, their bail bonds
should be cancelled and it was on such application that the bail
bonds of the petitioners were cancelled without application of
judicious mind, especially ignoring the fact that the petitioners
had not misused the conditions imposed upon them while
granting bail. He lastly submits that it is a settled law that the
cancellation of bail can be done only when the conditions
imposed upon the petitioners are not followed or the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78053 of 2024(4) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
misuse the liberty of bail granted to them.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
opposes the said application and has submitted that there is no
illegality in the order dated 23.07.2024.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned trial
court has taken into account the fact that the allegations against
the petitioners were serious and the apprehension of the
informant that they would be done to death is genuine and
therefore, has gone on to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
It is apparent that the said order does not contain any post facto
incident after the petitioners were granted bail. In view of the
above, the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge-5th , Saran at Chapra in Criminal Miscellaneous
No. 214 of 2022 is quashed.
7. The present application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U
Checking your session…