IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.38130 of 2008 RANJAN KUMAR, (Power of Attorney holder), S/o Shri Shiv Chandra Prasad Singh, R/o Flat No. 502, Om Sai Apartment Anantpur, P.O. & P.S. – Chutia, Distt. – Ranchi (Jharkhand), on behalf of Dr. Sita Ram Singh, S/o Late Ram Nath Singh, R/o Village – Baralia, P.O. & P.S. – Baralia, Distt. – Lakhisarai, presently posted at 72, Car Manner Road, Heads L.S. 17-5 (A.N.), U.K. at present Jalalpur, P.S. – Rupaspur, Distt. – Patna ……. ……………………………………………………………………..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR and 2. Ram Jatan Rai, S/o Late Ram Padarath Rai, R/o Rupaspur, P.S. – Danapur, Rupaspur, Distt. – Patna … Opposite Parties. ---------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi and Mr. Archana Shahi, Advocates. For the State:- Mr. R.P.S. Singh, A.P.P. For the O.P.No. 2:- Mr. Sumant Singh, Advocate. ----------- THE HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN O R D E R 8. 15.05.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner claiming himself to be the Power of Attorney holder on behalf of one Dr. Sita Ram Singh, who is the informant of Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 26/08, has filed this application for cancellation of bail granted to the Opposite Party No. 2 by this Court with respect to the aforesaid case vide order dated 20.08.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33746/2008. In this application it has been stated by the petitioner that he is the Power of Attorney holder of Dr. Sita Ram Singh, who resides at U.K. and he looks after 2 his ancestral properties and its related litigation. In the first information report it has been stated that the Opposite Party No. 2 with the help of other accused persons fabricated a forged Power of Attorney and in that capacity he allegedly sold certain lands in favour of his son. At the time of hearing of the bail petition, the alleged Power of Attorney was brought on record as Annexure-2 and it was further stated that Title Suit No. 96/08 had been filed by the other side for declaration that the Power of Attorney and the consequent sale deeds be declared forged, fabricated, fictitious and manufactured documents. It was urged that unless the registered document concerned is proved to be forged and fabricated by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, it cannot be assumed that the registered document is fake one. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Opposite Party No. 2 herein was granted bail by this Court. In the present application the petitioner has tried to impress upon this Court that the Power of Attorney concerned was a forged document and the 3 opposite party no. 2, who was merely a Munshi entrusted to look after the aforesaid land, taking illegal advantage has created the aforesaid Power of Attorney and started selling the land. It has been found during the course of investigation that Dr. Sita Ram Singh is in possession of the land since 1981 and has been paying regular municipal tax. However, it has been admitted by the petitioner that he, being the Power of Attorney holder of aforesaid Dr. Sita Ram Singh, has filed Title Suit No. 96/08 in the court of Sub Judge 1st, Danapur against the petitioner and others challenging the genuineness of the Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deed. The petitioner, thus, raised an issue of genuineness of the Power of Attorney and endeavoured to impress upon the Court that on merit the bail application ought to have been dismissed by this Court. Subsequently, by filing a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record the report of an expert showing that the thumb impression of Opposite Party No. 2 on the alleged Power of Attorney is not genuine. Again second supplementary affidavit was filed enclosing an order passed by the Sub Judge 1st, Danapur 4 in Title Suit No. 96/08 whereby the learned Sub Judge has allowed the prayer of the plaintiff for ad interim injunction and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property and further directed the defendants not to alienate or encumber any part of the suit land. The petitioner has also brought on record an informatory letter addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate by one Raushan Kumar claiming himself to be the brother-in-law of the petitioner, Ranjan Kumar stating therein that at the time of disposal of anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Judge when the author of that informatory letter tried to oppose the anticipatory bail application, all the accused persons started threatening openly. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party no. 2 submitted that the contention of the petitioner is chiefly based upon the issue of forging and fabricating the alleged Power of Attorney which is the subject matter of the aforesaid Title Suit. Further submission is that there has been no suppression of fact by the Opposite Party No. 2 while applying for bail. It has also been contended that in the original application for cancellation of bail, 5 there has been no whisper with regard to either misuse of the bail by the Opposite Party No. 2 or giving any threat. However, when the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted by the opposite party during the course of hearing that there had been no allegation with regard to any misuse of bail, then by way of second supplementary affidavit the alleged informatory petition has been brought on record. However, that has not been filed by the informant. Neither any complaint of misuse of bail by the opposite party no. 2 was made in the present case nor has any other case been lodged by the informant or any other person in this regard. It appears that deliberately an informatory petition was filed upon which no investigation is being carried out by any authority or agency. According to the Opposite Party no. 2, the same appears to have deliberately been done only with the purpose of creating a record. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also submits that there are different parameters for rejection of bail in a non-bailable case and cancellation of bail already granted. Cancellation of bail has to be considered and dealt with on different footing. Very 6 cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Aslam Babalar Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 272, Dolat Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 as well the decisions of this Court in Sita Ram Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 693 and Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 703. The opposite party has filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been specifically asserted that neither he has threatened the petitioner nor he will ever threaten him in future. Having considered the rival submissions this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner could not make out a case for cancellation of bail. As a result, this application is dismissed. However, this order will not come in way of 7 the petitioner in taking steps against the Opposite Party no. 2 in accordance with law in the event any of the conditions granting bail are violated in future by the Opposite Party no. 2, or the privilege of bail is misused or any other cogent reason for that purpose appear subsequently. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )