IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.13779 of 2010 PAWAN KUMAR son of Late Brijnandan Singh @ Birju Singh Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 7/ 12.10.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner, who is the informant of Silao P.S. case no. 50 of 2009 dated 27.4.2009 instituted for the offence under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. In the said case, the opposite party no.2, Munna Singh @ Raj Kumar Singh, was granted bail by this court by order dated 08.03.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No.2609 of 2010. In the said order, it was specially conditioned that the bailors inform the court concerned if the petitioner was implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court would be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse of bail. The present application has been filed on behalf of the informant stating therein that on 13.3.2010 while the opposite party no.2 was lodged in Biharsharif Jail at 4.30 P.M. in the evening when some incriminating articles were recovered from the possession of the opposite party no.2, there was a flare up amongst the jail inmates in which opposite party no.2 assaulted the jailors with a dagger. For this occurrence, Deep Nagar P.S. case no. 48 of 2010 was instituted against opposite party no.2 and some other jail inmates. On this ground, the petitioner filed the present application for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 that he has misused the privilege of bail by - 2 - indulging in similar activity even while confined in jail. This court issued notice to the opposite party no.2, who has appeared and filed a counter affidavit and stated that for the same occurrence even the petitioner has filed a complaint on 17.3.2010 and in fact, it was the opposite party no.2, who had been assaulted by the jail authorities. The submission is that on this complaint the court had called for a report and without conclusive proof of the petitioner having indulged in any similar activity his bail should not be cancelled. However, considering that even the opposite party no.2 partly admitted that a search had been made in the jail premises whereafter the occurrence took place there is no need for any further conclusive proof of the same. Considering the circumstances emerging in the present application, I find it a fit case where the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 should be cancelled on the ground of misuse of privilege of bail and, therefore, the order dated 08.03.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No.2609 of 2010 is hereby recalled and the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 is hereby cancelled. Let this order be communicated to the Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Biharsharif, in connection with Sessions Trial No.409 of 2009 through FAX at the cost of the petitioner for proper notice of the opposite party no.2 and his bailors. The application stands allowed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)