IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.16887 of 2010
RAMANAND YADAV, SON OF PARMANAND YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
CHAPAR, POLICE STATION GOPALPUR (RANGRA), DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR.
.....Petitioner.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. SIYA SHARAN YADAV, SON OF LATE MOTI YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
CHAPAR, POLICE STATION GOPALPUR (RANGRA), DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR.
.....Opposite Parties.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey (Adv.)
For the State : APP.
-----------
04/ 29.09.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the
petitioner and learned Counsel for the State
and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party
No.2.
The petitioner has come for
cancellation of bail granted to O.P. No. 2 on
09.05.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 9460 of 2008.
Primary submission of the petitioner is
that the bail was granted to the O.P. No. 2
which was challenged before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The liberty was granted to the
petitioner that he may apply for cancellation
of bail before the High Court or any other
appropriate forum in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl) No(s). 8223 of 2008.
The grievance of the petitioner is that
the Opposite Party No. 2 bears criminal
antecedent and despite that he has been
granted bail. There was possibility that the
2
O.P. No. 2 may tamper with the prosecution
witnesses. Further submission is that the
bail was granted due to wrong submission of
the O.P. No. 2 that he bears fair antecedent.
While granting bail to Opposite Party
No.2 Siya Sharan Yadav on 09.05.2010,
submissions were noted and this submission
has not been noted that the O.P. No. 2 is a
man of fair antecedent. This is not a case of
concealment and grounds for grant of bail
stands on different footing than the grounds
for cancellation of bail.
The bail was granted considering the
fact that the occurrence was of 30th May, 2007
and was reported on 05.06.2007. According to
the informant, the informant knew about the
occurrence on 02.06.2007. The matter was
reported after three days and the delay was
found to be unexplained. This was one of the
grounds for grant of bail.
In this case there is no concealment of
the fact, no fraud was committed on the part
of the Opposite Party No. 2.
After hearing the learned Counsel for
the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State
and learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2,
3
the order of granting of bail needs no
interference. So, prayer for cancellation of
bail is accordingly rejected.
kksinha/- (Shyam kishore Sharma, J.)