Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DAILYLAW 2000 (PAT)

RAJBALLAV KUMAR @ PRITAM RAJ @ RAJBALLABH KUMAR v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./71962/2023 · 2026-07-20

Sandeep Kumar

body2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71962 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-268 Year-2023 Thana- HISUWA District- Nawada ====================================================== RAJBALLAV KUMAR @ PRITAM RAJ @ RAJBALLABH KUMAR son of Birendra Yadav @ Birendra Kumar @ Bijendra Yadav Village- maulanagar Ps- Hisua Dist- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. RAJ KUMAR SHARMA son of Nanhu Sharma @ Late Nanhuk Sharma Village- Maulanagar Ps- Hisua Dist- Nawada ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manisha Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 20-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. This application has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 24.08.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 53154 of 2023 in connection with Hisua P.S. Case No. 268 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 379, 307, 324, 325 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 on the ground that he had obtained bail by suppressing his criminal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71962 of 2023(4) dt.20-07-2026 2/2 antecedent in a case registered for the offence under SC & ST Act. 4. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that criminal antecedent of the opposite party no.2 was not a ground for granting bail to the opposite party no.2. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, this application is rejected. shalini/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T