IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82938 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2024 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== Manoj Kumar, Son of Yogeshwar Prasad Yadav R/O village- Barah, ward no. 11, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul, Bihar-852110. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Mukesh Yadav son of Sukhdev Yadav, R/O Vill.- Bara, P.O.- Ekama, P.S.- Supaul (Laukaha O.P.), Dist.- Supaul, Bihar- 852110 3. Rupesh Kumar Son of Sukhdev Yadav R/O Vill.- Bara, P.O.- Ekama, P.S.- Supaul (Laukaha O.P.), Dist.- Supaul, Bihar- 852110 4. Sukhdev Yadav Son of Late Avadh Yadav R/O Vill.- Bara, P.O.- Ekama, P.S.- Supaul (Laukaha O.P.), Dist.- Supaul, Bihar- 852110 5. Baiju Kumar Yadav @ Baiju Kumar Son of Mahanthi Yadav R/O Vill.- Bara, P.O.- Ekama, P.S.- Supaul (Laukaha O.P.), Dist.- Supaul, Bihar- 852110 6. Arjun Kumar Son of Mahanthi Yadav R/O Vill.- Bara, P.O.- Ekama, P.S.- Supaul (Laukaha O.P.), Dist.- Supaul, Bihar- 852110 7. Devnarayan Yadav Son of Mahanthi Yadav R/O Vill.- Bara, P.O.- Ekama, P.S.- Supaul (Laukaha O.P.), Dist.- Supaul, Bihar- 852110 8. Mahanthi Yadav Son of Late Avadh Yadav R/O Vill.- Bara, P.O.- Ekama, P.S.- Supaul (Laukaha O.P.), Dist.- Supaul, Bihar- 852110 9. Puja Kumari Wife of Rupesh Kumar R/O Vill.- Bara, P.O.- Ekama, P.S.- Supaul (Laukaha O.P.), Dist.- Supaul, Bihar- 852110 10. Kiran Devi Wife of Arjun Yadav R/O Vill.- Bara, P.O.- Ekama, P.S.- Supaul (Laukaha O.P.), Dist.- Supaul, Bihar- 852110 ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 3 09-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to O.P. Nos. 2 to 10, vide order Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82938 of 2024(3) dt.09-12-2025 2/4 dated 08.07.2024 passed in A.B.P. No. 787 of 2024, arising out of Supaul P.S. Case No. 264 of 2024, by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Supaul. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has granted bail to the accused persons on the irrelevant document. Accordingly, bail of O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 may be cancelled. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. vs. the State of Telangana & Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 743. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that bail was granted to O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 on merit and no valid ground is made out by the petitioner to cancel their bail at this stage. He further submits that mere perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is land dispute between the parties and the informant and accused persons have compromised the matter. The informant/ Uma Kant Kumar also appeared before the Court concerned and submitted that compromise has been taken place between the parties and he has no objection to grant bail to the accused persons who are O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 in the present case. It is not disputed that Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not compoundable in nature, however, considering the other Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82938 of 2024(3) dt.09-12-2025 3/4 materials on record that there was land dispute, the Court has passed impugned order dated 08.07.2024 and granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons. It cannot be said that the impugned order is illegal or perverse. 5. In Raghubir Singh V. State of Bihar reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481, Hon'ble Supreme Court already held that bail can be cancelled where (i) the Accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigation agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to. 6. It cannot be said that the learned Court concerned has granted bail to O.P. Nos. 2 to 10 on the irrelevant consideration and the said order cannot be said as perverse Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82938 of 2024(3) dt.09-12-2025 4/4 which requires interference by this Court at this stage. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation against Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 10, the Court concerned granted bail and there is also no material to show that they have misused the liberty granted to them. 7. There is no merit in the present petition for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. rakhi/- (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) U T