[2025:JHHC:19821] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1480 of 2024 ------ Dropati Devi, aged about 63 Years, W/o Late Ravi Mahato, Resident of House No. 40, village- Udaipur, Near Hari Mandir, P.O.- Gamharia, P.S.- Gamhari, Distt.- Seraikella-Kharsawan (Jharkhand) 832108 … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sharat Mahato 3. Banvihari Mahato 4. Duryodhan Mahato All sons of Late Ghansiram Mahato, All resident of Village- Udaipur, Near- Hari Mandir, P.O.- Gamharia, P.S.- Gamharia, Distt.- Seraikella-Kharsawan (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha (4), Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For the OP No.2 to 4 : None ------ Order No:-08 Dated:-18-07-2025 Heard the parties. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 to 4 in terms of the order dated 09.10.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.7903 of 2023 in connection with C.C. Case No.826 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/424/467/468/471/506/323/341/120B of the Indian Penal Code which is pending in the court of CJM, Seraikella. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 was granted the privileges of anticipatory bail in terms of the order dated 09.10.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.7903 of 2023, the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 started fighting with the son of the complaint after capturing the questioned land. It is next submitted that the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 have put a bamboo fence with net and saree over the disputed land. Hence, it is submitted that the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 be cancelled. Learned P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 and submits that there is no ground for which the bail once granted can be cancelled having been made out in this Cr.M.P. Hence, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in Cr.M.P. No.2499 of 2021 wherein this Court enumerated the following grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled which are as under:- (i) by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interfering with the course of investigation, (iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country, (vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of their surety, etc. Now coming to the facts of the case, as already discussed above, there is no allegation against the petitioner of having committed any of the acts, deeds and things for which bail once granted can be cancelled. The only allegation appears to be regarding the dispute of land between the parties. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that such act of the petitioner as alleged in this Cr.M.P. is not sufficient to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party Nos.2 to 4. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/