1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 339 of 2025 Sultan Ansari, S/o Late Sakoor Mian, R/o Village- Nimadih, P.O. Ghorthamba, P.S. Dhanwar, District- Giridih, Jharkhand. .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Samsul Ansari @ Shamshul Ans+ari, S/o Late Sakur Ali @ Late Md. Sakur Mian @ Late Sakoor Mian, R/o Village- Nimadih, P.O. Ghorthamba, P.S. Rajdhanwar, District- Giridih, Jharkhand & Ors. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha (2), Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, SPP For the Informant : Mr. B. M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Nutan Kumari Sharma, Advocate …... 04/ 07.03.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed under Section 483(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for cancellation of bail granted to the Opp. Party No.2 [Samsul Ansari @ Shamshul Ansari, S/o Late Sakur Ali @ Late Md. Sakur Mian @ Late Sakoor Mian] vide order dated 10.01.2025 in B.A. No.21 of 2025. 2. The cancellation of bail is sought on the ground that, in Para-82 of the Case diary, the CDR (Call Details Report] wherein it has been mentioned that the accused /Opp. Party No.2 was in regular touch with the other co- accused person(s) and was complicit in the offence and charge has been framed against him under Section 120B of the IPC. 3. It is argued that the Opp. Party No.2 [Samsul Ansari @ Shamshul Ansari] has connived with the other accused persons for committing offence of murder due to land dispute and one co-accused, Dwarika Turi has admitted direct involvement of the O.P. No.2 in his confessional statement. 4. It is also submitted that charge in this case was framed on 05.02.2024 under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC and the fact that charge-sheet was also framed under Section 120B IPC was suppressed by the counsel for the petitioner at the time of pressing of bail application. 5. It is submitted Sr. Counsel for the Opp. Party No.2 that at that time when the bail application was moved, copy of the charge was not available with him and even in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, there is no reference to charge under Section 120B IPC. Therefore, this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Court. This fact was also not 2 brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel for the informant or the APP / SPP for the State. 6. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, at the outset it must be noted that there must be cogent, compelling and overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of bail under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. Grounds for cancellation broadly are: I. Interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice. II. Evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice. III. Abuse of liberty and breach of the condition of bail. It has been held in It has been held in CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452 : “36. Taking note of the fact that cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made, it should always be exercised very sparingly by the court of law.” 7. In the present case allegation against the OP No.2 is that the crime was committed at his instance, although he was not present at place of occurrence. In this view of matter, I do not find any material ground for cancelling the bail of the OP No.2. 8. Under the circumstance the criminal miscellaneous petition for cancellation of bail application stands rejected. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/ [Cr. M. P. No. 339 of 2025]