IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52207 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-153 Year-2022 Thana- CHIRAIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== BIPIN BIHARI SAHNI SON OF HARISHANKAR PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- LAL BEGIYA, PS- CHIRAIYA, DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. HARIF SAHNI SON OF PALTU SAHNI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- LAL BEGIYA, PS- CHIRAIYA, DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Sate : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 20-07-2026 Heard Mr. Vijendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh learned APP for the State and Mr. Abhishek Kumar appearing for the opposite party no.2 2. This application has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari vide order dated 11.05.2023 in Session Trial No. 840 of 2022, arising out of Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 153 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52207 of 2023(5) dt.20-07-2026 2/2 bail has been obtained by the opposite party no.2 by suppressing his criminal antecedents. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the criminal antecedents as stated by the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the opposite party no.2 has been acquitted by the learned Court below in one of the case and in the other case the police has already submitted its final form exonerating the petitioner. 5. I have perused the impugned order granting bail to the opposite party no. 2. and in these circumstances, I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. 7. The documents produced by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 with regard to the criminal antecedents of the opposite party no.2 are taken on record. shalini/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T