(2026:JHHC:21791) 1 Cr. M.P. No.198 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.198 of 2026 ------ Lalita Devi, aged about 32 years, daughter of Naresh Chouhan, resident of village- Bhandaridah, P.O.- Bhandaridah, P.S.- Chandrapura, District- Bokaro … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Prakash @ Prakash Noniya aged about 33 years, son of Lachu Nonia, resident of Staff Quarter Dhori, Nonia Patti, P.O.- Dhori, P.S.- Bermo, District- Bokaro … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Sr. Advocate Ms. Rajika Mahali, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, Addl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No.9740 of 2026 Heard the parties. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Cr.M.P. Since, the hearing of this Cr.M.P. is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P No.198 of 2026 This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik (2026:JHHC:21791) 2 Cr. M.P. No.198 of 2026 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 01.12.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.50 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) whereby and where under the petition for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2, in A.B.P. No.90 of 2025 arising out of C.P. Case No.1057 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been dismissed. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party No.2 is the accused of Bermo P.S. Case No.100 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.9508 of 2021 with the condition that he will not have any relationship with any lady namely Prity @ Rupa and he will keep the petitioner herein with him in his quarter allotted to him by his employer namely C.C.L. Subsequently, the opposite party No.2 violated the said condition. Vide order dated 08.09.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2437 of 2022, this Court cancelled the bail granted to the opposite party No.2. Subsequently, in the said Bermo P.S. Case No.100 of 2021, Final Report was submitted by the police and police did not send up the opposite party No.2 for trial. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Protest-cum-Complaint petition which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1057 of 2023 in which vide order dated 05.08.2024, the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat found sufficient materials to proceed against the opposite party No.2 inter alia for having (2026:JHHC:21791) 3 Cr. M.P. No.198 of 2026 committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party No.2 filed A.B.P. No.90 of 2025 which was taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro and vide order dated 27.02.2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro granted the privilege of anticipatory bail to the opposite party No.2 considering the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another. The petitioner filed a petition to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2. The same was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No.50 of 2025. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro considered that at the time of hearing of A.B.P. No.90 of 2025, the petitioner herein was presented before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro through her private counsel. Hence, there was not scope for the opposite party No.2 for suppressing any material. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of X vs. State of Telangana & Another reported in (2018) 16 SCC 511 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the Court must bear in mind that it is a settled principle of law that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a supervening event has been made out and in the absence of any such ground, rejected the prayer for cancellation of bail. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite party No.2 has admitted in O.S. No.723 of 2022 that he has solemnized second marriage. It is next submitted that the bail is a (2026:JHHC:21791) 4 Cr. M.P. No.198 of 2026 matter of liberty tied to ‘good conduct’ which the opposite party No.2 is miserably lacking. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 4. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the opposite party No.2 has not committed any act of omission or commission which will make him liable for cancellation of his bail. Hence, it is submitted that there is no justification to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No.2; as no illegality having been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that this Court vide order dated 01.04.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2499 of 2021 in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others enumerated the following grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled:- (i) by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interfering with the course of investigation, (iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country, (vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc. (2026:JHHC:21791) 5 Cr. M.P. No.198 of 2026 6. There is neither any allegation against the opposite party No.2 of violating any terms and conditions of bail nor the opposite party No.2 has committed any act, deed or thing which can even remotely be referred to the wrong for which the bail granted to an accused can be cancelled. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) in rejecting the prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 in terms of the order dated 01.12.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.50 of 2025 warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 483 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 7. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd of July, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 24/07/2026