( 2025:JHHC:12475 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.225 of 2024 ------ Babita Devi, age 46 years, wife of Late Dineshwar Sao, Resident of Village-Pochra, P.O. Barkakana, P.S. Patratu (Barkakana O.P.), District- Ramgarh 829102 (Jharkhand). … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dukhi Saw, son of Late Surajnath Saw 3. Ram Lakhan, Son of Late Surajnath Saw 4. Heera Gope, son of Late Munna Gope 5. Shiv Prasad Saw, son of Late Jivadhan Saw 6. Dev Shankar Saw @ Vitika, Son of Late Jivadhan Saw Respondent no.2 to 6 are residents of Village-Pochra, P.O. Barkakana, P.S. Patratu (Barkakana O.P.), District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand). … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Rajshree Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P. For the Ops : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate ------ Order No:-09 Dated:-25-04-2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 to 6 in terms of the order dated 10.04.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.2016 of 2019 passed by this Court in connection with Patratu (Barkakana) P.S. Case No.209 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the anticipatory bail inter alia granted to the opposite party no.2 to 6 with the condition that they will not disturb the possession of the informant or her family members over the land in respect of which sale deed no.558 dated 25.02.2001 was executed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.2 to 6 have breached the conditions imposed by this Court and with the help of Nepal Yadav disturbed the possession of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner filed an application under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh which was dropped on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, Patratu vide Misc. Case No.13 of 2022. It is next submitted that the petitioner has also filed Title Suit No.03 of 2023 and prayed for temporary injunction also but the same is pending in the Civil Court, Ramgarh. The petitioner also submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh and Officer-in-Charge, Patratu (Barkakana O.P.) with a prayer for restraining the said Nepal Yadav from going on the land in question. It is next submitted that the opposite party no.2 to 6 are protected by the said Nepal Yadav who is a stranger to the area and having criminal antecedent. It is next submitted that it has been mentioned in the supplementary affidavit that the opposite parties including Nepal Yadav have started construction over the disputed land from 04.06.2020 and constructed a building, hence, it is submitted that the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 to 6 in terms of the order dated 10.04.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.2016 of 2019 passed by this Court in connection with Patratu (Barkakana) P.S. Case No.209 of 2018 be cancelled. 4. Learned Spl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 to 6 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 to 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 to 6 that the opposite party no.2 to 6 have no concern with the Nepal Yadav and main allegation is against Nepal Yadav. 5. It is the admission of the petitioner as has been complained by her to the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh that it is Nepal Yadav who is disturbing her possession. It is next submitted that nowhere it has been mentioned at which time, on which date, the opposite party no.2 to 6 ever disturbed the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. 6. It is next submitted that the allegation against the opposite party no.2 to 6 are vague and vexatious and opposite party no.2 to 6 are cooperating with the trial of the case and the trial is at its fag and only one of the remaining prosecution witness is to be examined during the trial and also there is no allegation against the opposite party no.2 to 6 of tampering with any evidence or disturbing the informant in any manner or absconding. Therefore, it is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submission made at the bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the only condition imposed upon the opposite party no.2 to 6 is not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the land in question which is the subject matter of the sale deed and there is no specific overt act attributed to any of the opposite parties that they ever disturbed the possession of the petitioner on the disputed land. It is admission made by the petitioner that one Nepal Yadav is making construction of a building over the disputed land. There is no allegation to show as to what was the relation if any between the opposite party no.2 to 6 and Nepal Yadav. 8. It is a settled principle of law that the grounds of cancellation of bail once granted to an accused; illustratively though not exhaustively 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 indulge 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 his surety, etc. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 to 6, in terms of the order dated 10.04.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.2016 of 2019 passed by this Court in connection with Patratu (Barkakana) P.S. Case No.209 of 2018. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AFR-Abhiraj/