Patna High Court
Ram Lakhan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The petition to cancel the anticipatory bail is dismissed as the alleged facts do not meet the threshold of cogent and overwhelming circumstances required for cancellation.
Summary
Ram Lakhan Yadav petitioned the Patna High Court to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to Rambilash Yadav and Parikha Kumar, alleging they violated bail conditions by committing similar offences and filing a FIR against them. The State opposed, contending that the bail was granted after due diligence, the accused had not tampered with evidence or absconded, and a subsequent FIR alone does not justify cancellation. The Court reiterated that cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming supervening circumstances that would impede a fair trial. It found no such circumstances in the present case, noting the lack of evidence of misconduct beyond the FIR. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, leaving the bail order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the circumstances alleged by the petitioner constitute sufficient grounds to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail cancellation
- criminal procedure code
- supervening circumstances
- FIR
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81906 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-238 Year-2024 Thana- DAUDNAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Ram Lakhan Yadav Son of Vishwanath Yadav R/O Vill.- Budhan Bigha, P.O.-
Tarar, P.S.- Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rambilash Yadav Son of Late Ram Sakal Yadav R/O Vill.- Budhan Bigha,
P.O.- Tarar, P.S.- Daudnagar, Dist.- Aurangabad (Bihar).
3. Parikha Kumar @ Parikha Yadav Son of Late Ram Sakal Yadav R/O Vill.-
Budhan Bigha, P.O.- Tarar, P.S.- Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad (Bihar).
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunny Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. This Cr. Misc. petition has been filed to cancel the
bail of the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 which was granted by this Court vide
order dated 25.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 56901 of 2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that O.P.
Nos. 2 & 3 have violated the conditions of anticipatory bail
wherein they have undertaken to cooperate in the investigation
and further not to indulge in criminal acts or misuse the liberty
granted to them. Learned counsel further submits that O.P. Nos.
2 & 3 were indulged in criminal acts of similar nature after grant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81906 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
of bail. It reflects lack of bona fide and renders the accused
undeserving of the discretionary relief. Learned counsel,
therefore, prayed that the bail granted earlier be cancelled and
the opposite parties be taken into custody.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed and submitted
that this Court, by considering all facts and circumstances,
including that O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 are gotiya of informant and
partition suit is pending between the parties due to land dispute
between them, passed the bail order on merit. It is submitted
that mere lodging the subsequent F.I.R. during the pendency of
the case did not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of
bail. Therefore, no case is made out by the petitioner to cancel
the bail of the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3.
5. Law is well-settled that very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of bail, already granted. Cancellation
of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already
made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of
supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to
a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during trial.
6. In the present case, no valid ground for cancellation
of bail is made out, particularly when the bail was granted after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81906 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
due diligence and consideration of the facts and circumstances
of the case. O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 have not tampered with any
evidence and they are not absconding. There are no cogent and
overwhelming facts and circumstances, except one FIR lodged
by the son of informant/petitioner against them subsequently, to
cancel their bail.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, no
case is made out for cancellation of bail of O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 at
this stage. Accordingly, the present Cr. Misc. petition stands
dismissed.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…