IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41470 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2020 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya ====================================================== Santosh Kumar S/o Kapil Dev Prasad R/o Village - Dhanarua, P.S. - Neemchak Bathani, Dist. - Gaya Jee. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Jitendra Kumar S/o Kishori Yadav R/o Village - Dhanarua, P.S. - Neemchak Bathani, Dist. - Gaya Jee. 3. Vikash Kumar S/o Kishori Yadav R/o Village - Dhanarua, P.S. - Neemchak Bathani, Dist. - Gaya Jee. 4. Vijay Kumar S/o Kishori Yadav R/o Village - Dhanarua, P.S. - Neemchak Bathani, Dist. - Gaya Jee. 5. Bablu Kumar S/o Kishori Yadav R/o Village - Dhanarua, P.S. - Neemchak Bathani, Dist. - Gaya Jee. 6. Awadhesh Singh S/o Kishori Yadav R/o Village - Dhanarua, P.S. - Neemchak Bathani, Dist. - Gaya Jee. 7. Prasidha Kumar @ Prasidha Yadav S/o Ramadhin Yadav R/o Village - Dhanarua, P.S. - Neemchak Bathani, Dist. - Gaya Jee. 8. Bipin Kumar S/o Prasidha Kumar @ Prasidha Yadav R/o Village - Dhanarua, P.S. - Neemchak Bathani, Dist. - Gaya Jee. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 15-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The present application has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite parties no. 2 to 8 vide order dated 13.11.2025, 14.11.2025, 17.11.2025 and 26.11.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Gayaji in connection Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41470 of 2026(2) dt.15-07-2026 2/2 with Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 95 of 2020 dated 21.05.2020 instituted under Section 341, 323, 379, 307, 504 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the F.I.R., the opposite parties no. 2 to 8 are alleged to have assaulted the informant and snatched his gold chain and mobile phone. 4. I have perused the impugned orders granting bail to the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 and do not find any error in the said orders. Further, the petitioner has not been able to show any good ground to interfere with impugned orders granting bail to the opposite party nos. 2 to 8. Hence, no ground for cancellation of bail is made out. 5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. pallavi/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T