IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11144 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2015 Thana- KOCHADHAMAN District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Javed Alam @ Zabeed Alam S/o Late Badruddin @ Badrudeen R/o vill - Phulwari, P.S.- Kochadhaman, Distt. - Kishanganj. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Noorul Haque S/o Late Md. Tahir R/o vill - Fulwari, P.s. - Kochadhaman, Distt.- Kishanganj 3. Md. Ashfaque Alam S/o Late Md. Tahir R/o vill - Fulwari, P.s. - Kochadhaman, Distt.- Kishanganj 4. Hashim @ Md. Hasim S/o Manjar Alam @ Manzoor R/o vill - Fulwari, P.s. - Kochadhaman, Distt.- Kishanganj ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 4 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The present application has been preferred to cancel the bail bonds of the opposite party nos.2 to 4, who were granted the privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 29.03.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No.46918 of 2015 by a Bench of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in the case in question, the opposite party nos.2 to 4 have been indulging in altercation due to which subsequent cases were also filed, bearing Kochadhaman P.S. Case Nos.31 of 2015 and 10 of 2017. It is apparent from the face of record that while Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11144 of 2025(4) dt.22-01-2026 2/2 Kochadhaman P.S. Case Nos.31 of 2015, was instituted prior to the grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. As far as Kochadhaman P.S. Case Nos.10 of 2017 is concerned, the prayer for cancellation of bail based only on a subsequent incident of the year 2017, for which the petitioner filed a case against opposite party nos.2 to 4, would not be a relevant consideration for the purposes of such cancellation of bail granted in the year 2016 for two reasons, firstly, it is not mentioned in the order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner that filing of subsequent case against the opposite party nos.2 to 4 would entail cancellation of bail granted to them. Secondly, the present application for cancellation of bail has been filed after inordinate delay in the year 2025, for which no plausible and cogent reason has been assigned. 4. In view of the foregoing reasons and also considering the settled law with regard to cancellation of bail for which cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary as the parameters of grant of bail and cancellation of bail stand on two different footing, I am not inclined to entertain this application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Trivedi/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) U T