1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.359 of 2018 ----- Jiyaul Sk. Son of Hamau Sk., resident of Village Udhwa, Diyara, P.O. Udhwa, P.S. Radhanagar, District Sahibganj. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Illiyas Sk. @ Illiyas Sheikh 3. Majid Sk. @ Mojid Sheikh @ Mozibur Rahman 4. Johak Ali @ Md. Johar Ali 5. Mohar Ali … … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ----- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raja Ravi Shankar Singh, Advocate. For the O.P. : Ms. Sushma Aind, A.P.P : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Advocate ----- 18/ 21.03.2025 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the opposite parties. 2. By filing this Criminal Misc. Petition, the petitioner prays for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party Nos.2 to 5, by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2017 passed in A.B.A. No.5723 of 2017. 3. The ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail is that before the bail was granted, processes under Section 82 Cr.P.C., was already issued. 4. Learned counsel representing the accused-opposite parties opposes the prayer of cancellation of anticipatory bail and submits that though the order was issued on 30.11.2017 but actually the processes were issued on 06.12.2017. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that opposite party Nos.2 to 5 were granted privilege of anticipatory bail on 04.12.2017. 2 6. The order sheet of the Trial Court suggests that the Magistrate had passed an order directing issuance of processes under Section 82 Cr.P.C., on 30.11.2017 but from the order sheet, I find that actually the processes were issued on 06.12.2017 and the same were handed over to the officer for execution. 7. Since the processes were actually handed over for execution much after the time period when anticipatory bail was granted and the order of issuance remained in the order sheet without there being any process, I find that there is no ground to recall the order, by which the anticipatory bail was granted to the accused – opposite parties. Further, I also find that there is no complaint from any corner that the accused-opposite parties have misused the privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-2