(2025:JHHC:28548) Cr.M.P. No.424 of 2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 424 of 2020 Shatrughan Prasad, aged about 75 years, son of late Beni Prasad, resident of Birsa Chowk, P.O.-Hatia, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rama Shankar Prasad, son of late Laxman Prasad, resident of Hatia Station Road, Birsa Chowk, P.O.-Hatia, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, Dist.- Ranchi (Jharkhand) …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate : Ms. Aprajita Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Addl. P.P. For O.P.No.2 : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to set aside the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2354 of 2008 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite party (2025:JHHC:28548) Cr.M.P. No.424 of 2020 2 no.2 in terms of the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No. 2581 of 2010. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 is an accused of Complaint Case No. 2354 of 2008 and he has been granted bail subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. There are series of litigation going on between the parties. It is undisputed fact of both the parties that the opposite party no.2 has so long been cooperating with the trial of the case and the case is fixed for final argument on the merits of the case. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no.2 had left India for a brief period without the permission of the court concerned as required under Section 438 (2) (iii) of Cr.P.C. and has come back but since the opposite party no.2 has left India without the permission of the court hence, the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 be cancelled. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the opposite party no.2 has no evil intention and the opposite party no.2 in his petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C. filed before the trial court has intimated the learned trial court that he had gone to Bali for an urgent business trip and such a representation and through lawyer by dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner was allowed by the trial court the same amounts to according permission by the trial court. It is then submitted that, in view of the urgency of the matter, the petitioner could not intimate the trial court beforehand (2025:JHHC:28548) Cr.M.P. No.424 of 2020 3 but the undisputed fact remains that in the meanwhile the petitioner has already come back and he is very much present in India right now and he never misused the privilege of bail and all along cooperated with the trial. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that, keeping in view the undisputed fact that the opposite party no.2 left India only for a brief period and has already come back and he has also intimated the trial court by filing an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with his personal appearance from the trial court at the relevant period when he was outside India and the prayer for dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner was allowed by the trial court and the undisputed fact that the opposite party no.2 has all along been cooperating with the trial of the case and at present he is in India and the trial is at the stage of argument, this Court is of the considered view that cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 under such facts and circumstances of the case will not be in the interest of justice. 7. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th September, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-