IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28312 of 2008 DILIP THAKUR @ DILIP KUMAR THAKUR @ DILIP KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 22.12.2008 Heard Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. The petitioner was admitted to anticipatory bail on the materials which may indicate that it would not be an intentional murder and the cause of death of the deceased might have been caused on account of the circumstances beyond anybody’s control. The order of anticipatory bail was till submission of chargesheet and as soon as the chargesheet was submitted, the bond of the petitioner was cancelled and now the petitioner, who appears from the case diary not even being present in the household at the time of the occurrence, finds himself in custody. The court has cancelled the bond but it should not be in a routine manner even if there is observation of the nature as was made in the order by which the petitioner was admitted to anticipatory bail. I could express my view that if an accused has remained in jail for quite considerable a period, mere submission of chargesheet may not be the ground for canceling his bond. The court has to look to the legally recognized principles of cancellation simply for the reason that granting bail is a Rule and cancellation is the most exceptional act of a Judge which could be resorted to only under certain well recognized circumstances. Those circumstances could be the commission of the same or more serious offence by the accused who has been admitted to bail, the accused after being released on bail proving to be a threat to the society, after being admitted to bail the accused could have threatened the witnesses or could have attempted to subvert the course of justice, - 2 - the accused could have run away from justice and it would not have been possible for the agency to apprehend the accused so as to bringing him again to justice. These are some of the recognized principles. The court which had passed the order of cancellation could not have passed the same under the facts and circumstances of the case. I believe that the learned Magistrate or the learned Judge who handled this case could be aware of the principles, as indicated above, and this could not be a routine duty of a Judge to cancel the bond of an accused who had not indulged in any offence or against whom there is no report or evidence suggesting any of the above circumstances requiring the cancellation of the bond and committal of the accused to custody. Considering that the petitioner was on bail granted by this Court, let petitioner named above be released on bail on execution of the same value and nature, as was directed and executed by the petitioner while being admitted to anticipatory bail, to the satisfaction of the A.D.J.-X, Patna, in connection with Sessions Trial no.1376 of 2008 arising out of Maner P.S. case no.131 of 2006. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )