( 2026:JHHC:330 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 3415 of 2025 Lovely Kumari Singh, aged about 31 years, wife of Siddharth Kumar Singh, resident of Swami Sahjanand Colony, Jora Talab, Bariyatu, P.O. and P.S. Bariyatu, District-Ranchi …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Sidharth Kumar Singh @ Siddharth Kumar Singh, aged about 37 years, son of Sitaram Singh, resident of village Tapovan Colony, Near Argon Factory, Kokar, P.O. and P.S. Kokar, District-Ranchi …… Opposite Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakhar Kumar Vishain, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. ………. 04/Dated: 07/01/2026 This petition has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the O.P. No.2 vide order dated 17.08.2023 passed in A.B.A. No. 3867 of 2022 in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that anticipatory bail was allowed by order dated 17.08.2023 on certain terms and conditions that O.P. No.2 will pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the petitioner in installment of Rs. 1,75,000/- each. He submits that the O.P. No.2 has paid two installment amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/- to the petitioner. He further submits that earlier the petitioner has moved in Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2024 for cancellation of bail which was dismissed by order dated 13.12.2024 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that earlier the petitioner has moved in Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2024 which was dismissed by order dated 13.12.2024. 4. In view of above it appears that bail has already been granted to the O.P. No.2 and two installments have also been paid and rest installment has not been paid for that present petition has been filed for cancellation of bail. 5. If order is there and it is not being implemented, the petitioner has ( 2026:JHHC:330 ) remedy to file proper petition before the competent court. 6. The rejection of bail on one footing but cancellation of bail is a hard order. It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done, in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or take into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. 7. The Court has perused the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481, wherein it has been held that it is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. 8. In view of this provision of law once the anticipatory bail is granted and in absence of any cogent reason bail cannot be cancelled. Earlier the petitioner has moved in Cr.M.P. No. 1517 of 2024 for cancellation of bail which was dismissed by order dated 13.12.2024 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 9. In view of above, no case of cancellation of anticipatory bail is made out and accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dt. 07.01.2026 Satyarthi/