Patna High Court
Ashish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party stands and the application for its cancellation is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashish Kumar, filed an application seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Sanjeev Kumar, the alleged purchaser of a disputed plot of land. The petitioner alleged a reasonable apprehension that witnesses might be tampered with and that the bail was granted on extraneous considerations. The High Court held that vague apprehensions do not suffice to cancel bail and noted that the lower court had based its order on substantial reasons, including the presumption of bona‑fide purchase under a registered transaction and the absence of any cogent evidence of complicity. The court also observed that appropriate conditions were imposed on the bail, such as cooperation with the investigation and physical presence in court. Consequently, the application for cancellation was dismissed, though the petitioner was advised that a fresh application could be filed if supervening circumstances arise.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be cancelled on the basis of a vague apprehension of witness tampering
- Whether the bail was granted on extraneous considerations contrary to law
- Whether the presumption of bona‑fide purchase by a vendee precludes cancellation of anticipatory bail
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cancellation of bail
- witness tampering
- bona fide purchaser
- land dispute
- Criminal Procedure Code
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79333 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1504 Year-2023 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna
======================================================
Ashish Kumar Son of Late Ravish Kumar Sinha Mohalla- Prem Niketan P.O.-
Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Phulwari, Dist.- Patna, Bihar. Pin- 800002, also,
Permanent Resident of Prem Niketan, P.O. Anisabad, Phulwari, District-
Patna, Bihar- 800002
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanjeev Kumar Son of Late Kameshwar Prasad R/O Vill.- Mobarakpur,
P.O.- Kharthwa, P.S.- Harnaut, Dist.- Nalanda, Pin- 803110, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Siddharth Shankar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP of the State.
2. The petitioner has filed the present application
seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite
party no. 2 by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judg-VIII,
Patna vide order dated 13.09.2024 in A.B.P. No.2228 of 2024.
3. Upon perusal of the petition, the instant application
for cancellation of anticipatory bail has been filed primarily on
the ground of a reasonable apprehension of witnesses being
tampered and the likelihood of commission of similar nature of
crime, as has been urged by the petitioner.
4. The bail already granted to opposite party No. 2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79333 of 2024(4) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
cannot be cancelled on the mere basis of vague apprehension.
Moreover, the other ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is
that the bail was granted on extraneous considerations is also fit
to be rejected, inasmuch as the order passed by the learned court
concerned is based on substantial reasons. The said order clearly
records that the opposite party No. 2 is merely a purchaser of
the plot in question, which was sold to him by the younger
brother of the petitioner and that there exists a well-recognized
presumption of bona fide belief on the part of a purchaser
arising out of a duly registered transaction of land.
5. The learned court concerned has taken into
consideration the fact that opposite party No. 2 was merely a
vendee of the land and that the transaction had taken place
between private parties. The court has also considered that no
cogent legal evidence was collected during the course of
investigation so as to establish the complicity of opposite party
No. 2 in the alleged offence.
6. The Court concerned has also carefully put the
conditions which involves co-operation in the investigation and
also being present physically on each and every date in the
learned trial Court till the hearing or framing of charge.
7. In such background of the facts and considering
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79333 of 2024(4) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
well reasoned order of the learned Court concerned granting
anticipatory bail to the opposite party no.2, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
8. However, it goes without saying that in case of any
supervening circumstances, the petitioner would always have
liberty to move for cancellation of bail seeking the relief.
9. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…