IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37746 of 2008 MD. SHAMSHUDDIN, S/o. late Asar Ali Mian, r/o. Village- Badki Bihiyar, P.S. Mohanpur, District- Gaya. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Sahdeo Prasad, S/o. Khiru Mahto, r/o. Village-Gauria karma, P.S. Barhi, Distt. Hazaribagh, presently posted as O.C. Muffasil P.S., Chaibasa, Jharkhand. ----------- 03. 14.10.2009 This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to O.P.No.2 Sahdeo Prasad vide order dated 02.05.2008 under Cr. Misc. No.10407 of 2008. The O.P. No.2 who was the then Officer-in-Charge of Mohanpur P.S., an accused in Complaint Case No.82 of 2002 under Section 452, 504, 323 & 386 of the I.P.C. filed by the petitioner Md. Shamshuddin. The anticipatory bail was granted on considering the materials that petitioner’s brother Sarfuddin had filed a written report before the O.P. No.2 that he had taken money from him and he was not returning the same and that for resolving the matter the petitioner had been called at the P.S. It was also considered that the petitioner in presence of Mukhia and several villagers has also executed a bond at the P.S. undertaking to return the money taken from his brother Sarfuddin. The F.I.R. filed by the petitioner’s brother Sarfuddin under Section 406 I.P.C. regarding the loan-money annexed as Annexure-C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the Complaint Case No.82 of 2002, the O.P. No.2 was absconding for a long time and he was not appearing and that the trial-court had issued warrant and processes against him. Learned counsel also submits that while arguing the anticipatory bail application the petitioner 2 suppressed the fact that warrant and processes have been issued against him in the complaint case. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 replied that there is no bar in law that anticipatory bail cannot be entertained when warrant of arrest has been issued and that it can be entertained simply on apprehension of arrest. Learned counsel also submitted that the O.P. No.2 who at the relevant time was posted as Officer-in- Charge of Mohanpur P.S. was transferred to State of Jharkhand after the bifurcation of the State in September, 2004 and that any warrant or processes was never served upon him and he was quite unaware of any processes issued against him. Learned counsel for the O.P.2 has submitted that since the O.P. No.2 being Officer-in-Charge of the P.S. have got the F.I.R. filed by the petitioner’s brother Sarfuddin investigated and charge-sheet filed against him (petitioner) the petitioner in order to feed fat his grudge falsely filed a complaint case against him (O.P.2). Learned counsel for O.P.2 also submitted that after getting anticipatory bail vide this Court’s order dated 02.05.2008 the O.P.No.2 surrendered immediately before the trial-court and executed his bail- bond there and he is regularly attending the Court through his Advocate. Learned counsel also submitted that period exceeding one year has elapsed but the petitioner who happens to be the complainant in that complaint case has not appeared in that case and he has not adduced any evidence and he is keeping the case pending simply in order to harass the O.P. No.2, who is a government official. Learned counsel for the petitioner replied that the petitioner was threatened for 3 not giving his evidence in the complaint case. He also submitted that the petitioner had sent petitions to superior police officials regarding the threat and harassment to him. In reply to this learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 refers to Annexure-E to the counter affidavit, which is a report of Officer-in-Charge Mohanpur P.S. to Sub-divisional Police Officer, Sherghati purported to have been sent on the enquiry conducted on petitioner’s petition about the alleged threat to him. In the report the Officer-in-Charge, Mohanpur P.S. has stated that he inquired the matter from several villagers and from other angles also and found that the O.P. No.2 was working as Officer-in-Charge of Chaibasa P.S. in the State of Jharkhand and he never happened to be in the village of the petitioner and there was no substance in the allegation of giving threat and that the petitioners allegation in this respect was false and fabricated. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 also submitted that a bail can be cancelled only on the grounds that the accused has misused the privilege of bail or he has interfered with the investigation or the administration of justice in any manner. Any Such case is not made out by the petitioner. In such view of the matters, I find no reason for cancellation of bail, therefore, this application is dismissed. Mkr. (C. M. Prasad, J.)