-1- Cr.M.P. No.3807 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2156 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr.M.P. No.3807 of 2025 ---- Sarita Devi, wife of Ashok Mahto, aged about 35 years, resident of Upar Tola, at Tilaiya, PO Daniya, PS Mahuwatand, District Bokaro …… …. .... Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- 1.State of Jharkhand 2.Manju Devi, wife of Sarju Mahto, aged about 42 years 3.Ganesh Mahto @ Ganesh Kumar Mahto, son of Sarju Mahto aged about 24 years 4.Sarju Mahto, son of late Bariyar Mahto aged about 46 years, All resident of Village Tilaiya, PO Daniya, PS Jageshwar Vihar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand 829112…. Opp. Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ---- For the Petitioner(s) :- Ms Jyoti Kumari, Advocate For the State :- Mr. P.D.Agarwal, Spl.P.P. ---- 2/28.01.2026 This petition has been filed for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite parties 2,3, and 4 by order dated 21.08.2025 in ABA No.4607 of 2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by way of suppressing the real facts, the opposite parties were granted anticipatory bail and in view of that the anticipatory bail granted to them may kindly be cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the petitioner was heard at the time of granting anticipatory bail to the opposite parties. 4. The complaint case was filed which was converted into the FIR in light of the order of the learned court and in para 3 itself -2- Cr.M.P. No.3807 of 2025 it has been stated that Rs.30,000/- was given to the O.P.No.2 @ 5% interest and the petitioner was also heard at the time of granting anticipatory bail and there is no cogent reason to cancel the anticipatory bail. 5. It is well known that once the bail or anticipatory bail is granted, in a routine way, that cannot be cancelled, unless very cogent reason is there. No case of interference is made out. 6. As such, this petition is hereby dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated : 28th January, 2026 SI/