IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52025 of 2008 KUMAR SIMANT @ SIMANT KUMAR, SON OF SRI ANAND PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF WEST CHURCH ROAD, NEAR RED CROSS SOCIETY, P.S. – RAMPUR, DISTRICT – GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DR. SARJU PRASAD SHARMA @ SARJU PRASAD SHARMA SON OF LATE RAGHUNANDAN SHARMA, RESIDENT OF WEST CHURCH ROAD, P.S. RAMPUR, DISTRICT – GAYA. 3. MAYA DEVI SHARMA WIFE OF DR. SARJU PRASAD SHARMA, RESIDENT OF WEST CHURCH ROAD, P.S. RAMPUR, DISTRICT – GAYA. 4. SAHID HASSAN KHAN SON OF KHALIL KHAN, RESIDENT OF STAR LODGE, G.B. ROAD, P.S. CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT – GAYA. ----------- 7. 05.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner , State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties. This application is filed by the brother of the informant for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 vide order dated 14.11.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34413 of 2008. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that while making the submissions for granting anticipatory bail, misleading submissions were made so as to appear that the Civil Suit vide Title Suit No. 2 117 of 2008 for setting aside the sale deed in question and also the partition suit vide Title Suit No. 118 of 2008 were filed prior to the lodging of F.I.R. vide Civil Lines Police Station Case No. 17 of 2008 whereas the suits were filed after lodging of the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the offences were grave and materials were collected during investigation to bring home the charges. It is further submitted that after grant of anticipatory bail, the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 have started influencing the prosecution witnesses and Investigating Officer, however no such complain to the higher police official or any petition to the concerned Magistrate was filed. In the above circumstances, submission is that bail granted to Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 deserves to be cancelled. Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4, on the other hand, submits that no misleading submissions were made, the copy of the plaints of both the above suits as also the copy of complaint case the base of the F.I.R. were already on the record of the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous No. 34413 of 2008, as such, no misleading submissions were made. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties are in respect of land 3 covered under the sale deed in question for which the criminal case as well as the civil suits are pending between them. Title suit No. 117 of 2008 as referred to above, filed by the informant for setting aside the sale deed which is pending for consideration. As regards the allegation of influencing the attesting witnesses of the sale deed, it is submitted that the same attesting witness swearing two contradictory affidavits could be the matter to be considered in the aforesaid Civil Suit as well as the criminal case in question. The allegation of influencing of the Investigating Officer is absolutely incorrect and no material is brought on record to substantiate the above allegation. Considering the submission of the parties and on perusal of the order dated 14.11.2008, it appears that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail were taken into consideration as also the facts and circumstances of the case leading to filing of Civil Suits as also the criminal case available on record, the application for anticipatory bail was allowed to the Opposite Party No. 2 to 4. Now considering the submissions of the petitioner herein that the offences are grave in nature and the materials available on record as also the 4 Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 are influencing the Investigating Officer and witnesses. I do not find any material in support of the same. It further appears that the application for cancellation of bail is neither filed by the State nor the informant. The petitioner is brother of the informant as stated in paragraph 2 of the petition. Considering the above, I do not find a fit case for cancelling the bail granted to the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 vide order dated 14.11.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34413 of 2008. This application is accordingly rejected. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)