( 2026:JHHC:10285 ) -1- Cr.M.P. No. 311 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 311 of 2026 Devendra Kumar Singh, aged about 38 years, son of Late Videsh Singh, resident of Village- Belwatika, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District- P … Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Awadhesh Upadhyay, son of Late Ramprasad Upadhyay, resident of Village- Sudna, P.O. & P.S. Sudna, Daltonganj, District- Palamau, Jharkhand, presently resident of Village Surajpura, P.O. & P.S. Tariatha (Via Noan), District- Kaimur (Bhabhuwa), Bihar … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. ----- 02/10.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail of opposite party no.2, which was allowed vide order dated 27.08.2025 passed in A.B.A. No.4807 of 2025. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.2 from the very inception, has played fraud with the informant. He further submits that opposite party no.2 has misled the Court and even after the undertaking placed before the Court, opposite party no.2 has not complied the said order by refund of payment of Rs.15 Lakhs. On these grounds, he submits the anticipatory bail granted to opposite party no.2 may kindly be cancelled. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that by the cogent reason, this Court has been pleased to allow the anticipatory bail to opposite party no.2. ( 2026:JHHC:10285 ) -2- Cr.M.P. No. 311 of 2026 5. Vide order dated 27.08.2025, A.B.A. No.4807 of 2025 was allowed, whereby, opposite party no.2 was provided privilege of anticipatory bail. In the said order, it has been recorded that the dispute is of civil nature and the accused has offered to make payment of Rs.15 Lakhs to the informant, however, he has refused to accept the same and considering all these aspects of the matter, anticipatory bail was provided to opposite party no.2. There is cogent reason in allowing the anticipatory bail to opposite party no.2. 6. It is well-known that in a routine manner, once the bail granted cannot be cancelled unless cogent reason is shown to cancel the bail order. 7. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to cancel anticipatory bail granted to the accused-opposite party no.2 and, accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 10th April, 2026 Ajay/