[2026:JHHC:17278 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3328 of 2025 The Victim … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Pankaj Kumar, aged about 27 years, S/o Late Maan Singh, R/o vill- Bhandradih, P.O.- Giridih, P.S.- Pachamba, Dist.- Giridih … Opp. Parties Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Harsh , Adv. For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. PP For the O.P.No. 2 : Mr. Vijay Kr. Roy, Adv. 08 / 12.06.2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 483 (3) BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner with the prayer for cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 herein by this court in terms of the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in BA No. 1914 of 2025. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after being granted bail, the opp. party no. 2 mis-used the privilege and liberty provided by this court and indulged in the activity of similar nature for which he was granted bail. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not filed the copy of the charge sheet in this case nor the names of the witnesses, named in the charge sheet has been mentioned in this petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one of the witnesses namely Surendra Rajak was manhandled by the brother of the Opp. Party no. 2, hence, Complaint case no. 1786 of 2025 has been instituted against the Opp. Party no. 2 also but in that case, the cognizance has not yet been taken by learned Magistrate nor Solemn Affirmation of the complainant has been recorded and next date fixed is on 20.07.2026, for recording the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation, hence, it is submitted that the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 herein by the trial court in terms of the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in BA No. 1914 of 2025 be cancelled. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 herein, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 herein in terms of the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in BA No. 1914 of 2025 and submits that there is absolutely no allegation specifically made against the opp. party no. 2 herein of violating any of the conditions of the bail and the opp. party no. 2 herein, cannot be held liable for the alleged acts committed by his brother, even assuming for the sake of argument, that the allegations made in this petition are true. It is next submitted that since admittedly the opp. party no. 2 herein is a public servant posted as a Constable in Bihar police; therefore, there is no rhyme or reason for him to visit Dhanbad except for attending the Court in connection with the case, hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made at the Bar, this court is of the view that since, there is no direct or specific allegation against the opp. party no. 2 herein of committing any overt act after being granted bail; so as to annoy or disturb the witness and though a complaint case has been filed against the opp. party no. 2 herein, but there is absolutely no role attributed to the opp. party no. 2 herein in the alleged occurrence of that complaint case as also the fact that in that complaint case, statement on Solemn Affirmation of the complainant has not yet been recorded; this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to cancel the bail granted to the opp. party no. 2 herein as he has not committed any overt act, which will make him liable for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 12.06.2026 Smita/-