IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38362 of 2011 Surendra Hajara, son of Late Balchand Hajara, resident of Village-Babhan Toil, P.S.-Srinagar, District-West Champaran. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Anil Rai @ Anil Kumar Rai 3. Manoj Rai @ Manoj Kumar Rai Both sons of Vasant Rai 4. Vinay Rai son of Anil Rai 5. Pintu Rai @ Mintu Rai son of Ramvilas Rai All resident of Pujaha, Babhan Toli, P.S. Srinagar-District-West Champaran. ---------------------------------- 2. 01.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The present petition has been filed for cancellation of bail earlier granted to the opposite parties No. 2 to 5 by this Court in connection with Srinagar (Pujaha) Case No. 36 of 2011 on 30.09.2011 in Cr. Misc. No. 33828 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the present petition submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15.09.2011 on the supervision note of the Police Inspector in the case had directed for adding Section-3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act in the First Information Report. He submits that from the order, it is clear that such fact was not disclosed or brought to the notice of this Court on 30.09.2011 when bail was granted. He submits that this amounts to suppression of fact and is good ground for cancellation of the bail granted. On perusal of the materials on record it is obvious 2 that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had directed for addition of the said Section under the S.C. and S.T. Act only on 15.09.2011 whereas the bail was granted on 30.09.2011. Thus there was a gap of only 15 days between the two. It is obvious that the order dated 15.09.2011 must have taken at least a few days for being communicated and complied with. Thereafter, any certified copy would have reflected such newly added Section in the First Information Report. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 15.09.2011 and the order granting bail dated 30.09.2011 is separated by a time gap of only two weeks and according to this Court is not enough for either the petitioners or their counsel to be aware of this development so as to bring to notice of this Court. Besides, this is not a normal development and is quite exceptional and in the ordinary course it is not expected that the party would each and every day keep checking with regard to any addition or deletion of the Section in the First Information Report. Normally, during the trial, the Court has sufficient power to add Sections and or persons depending on the evidence which comes before it. Even, otherwise, after once again going through the First Information Report as well as taking into consideration that even as per the case of the informant who is the petitioner in the present 3 application, it is admitted position that only family members of the two sides were present at the place of occurrence, thus, probably, the same was not happening in public view so as to attract the Provisions of the S.C./S.T. Act. However, this Court would not like to go into details for the reasons that it may have effect on the ultimate trial. Considering the aforementioned facts and taking into consideration, the position that there is no material change in the ground realities, subsequent to the passing of the order dated 30.09.2011 and also the fact that there is no allegation of any misuse of the privilege of bail granted to the concerned persons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 30.09.2011 by which bail have been granted to the opposite parties No. 2 to 5. It goes without saying, as the law is settled, no observation made in any order either granting or rejecting bail shall prejudice the case of either side. This application stands dismissed. Saif/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)