Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 40497 (JHR)

SHEO SHANKAR PRASAD VERMA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.M.P./2956/2025 · 2025-10-31

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:32693 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2956 of 2025 ----- Sheo Shankar Prasad Verma, S/o Late Kishun Saw, R/o Barkagaon, P.O. and P.S. Barkagaon, District- Hazaribagh ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Laxman Kumar Verma @ Lakshman Kumar Verma, S/o Late Kishun Saw 3.Bimmi Kumari, D/o Dinesh Prasad 4.Sapna Kumari, W/o Birendra Kumar 5.Birendra Kumar Verma @ Birendra, S/o Laxman Kumar Verma 6.Arbind Kumar Verma @ Arvind Kumar Verma, S/o Laxman Kumar Verma All R/o Village Barkagaon, P.O. and P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribag ------ Opp. Party (s) CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pinky Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, AddI. P.P. …...... 02/ 31.10.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is the informant of Barkagaon P.S. Case No.223 of 2021. 3. The accused who is none but the brother of this petitioner had approached for grant of anticipatory bail, which was granted in A.B.A. No.6663 of 2024 vide order dated 16.06.2025. This Court granted the anticipatory bail to the accused finding that the dispute is primarily be a civil in nature as the allegation is that the joint family property was being sold by one of the co-sharers. 4. After the bail was granted the petitioner who is the informant has moved this Court for cancellation of the bail. The ground for cancellation is mentioned in paragraph 9 of this petition. It has been mentioned that after obtaining anticipatory bail, the opposite parties (accused) are threatening the petitioner and repeating the offences and using unlawful methods for acquiring petitioner’s property. 5. There is nothing on record to suggest that what is the extent of the threat and how the threat has been given and there is nothing on record to suggest that any further criminal case has been filed for such threat or not. The allegation of threat is absolutely vague. This cannot be a ground to cancel the anticipatory bail which has already been granted. 6. Thus, this Cr.M.P. stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 31st October, 2025 R.S./Sandeep