2025:JHHC:11831 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 1563 of 2024 Vidyadhar Ojha, aged about 58 years, Son of R.D. Ojha, Resident of H No. 6/1 Block No. 29 Alokanand, Alok Vihar, Ghorabanda, Jamshedpur, Birsa Nagar, Chota Govindpur, Telco, P.O. Telco, P.S.- Telco, Town District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand -Jamshedpur … … Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arti Soy, Aged about 44 years, Wife of Sri Ramakant Soy, Resident of Birsanagar, Zone No. 2B, P.O. Birsanagar P.S. - Birsanagar, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 3. Danial Soy, Aged about 45 years, Son of Chamanlal Soy, Resident of Birsanagar, Zone No. 2B, P.O. - Birsanagar P.S. - Birsanagar, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ----- For the Petitioner : M/s. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : M/s. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. --- C.A.V. On 21.02.2025 Pronounced on 07.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, learned Spl.P.P. for the state. 2. The petitioner has filed this application for cancellation of Bail Application granted to the opposite party nos 2 and 3 vide order dated 12.07.2019, passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. B. Mangalmurti in B.A. No.-8164/2018 in connection with Birsa Nagar Police Station Case No. 02 / 2018, Corresponding to G.R. No. 51/2018, registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 380, 323, 341, 504, 506, 120B of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned lawyer for the petitioner submitted that the bail was granted to the petitioner on the basis of the submission that the matter was in the nature of civil dispute between the parties. It was also submitted that after granting of bail, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were disturbing the possession of the petitioner and they also committed theft in his house for which Birsanagar P.S. Case No. 48 of 2020 was instituted. 4. From the perusal of the order, granting bail to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, it appears that the bail was granted to the to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, mainly on the ground of period of custody and the fact that charge was already framed on 21.05.2019. 5. As far as the allegation of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they had entered into the house of the informant and committed theft for which another case has been instituted. 6. Considering the grounds on which the petitioner was granted bail, no case for cancellation of his bail is made out. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. 8. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed off (Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated:- 07.04.2025 Saurabh/ NAFR