Jharkhand High Court
Victim vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 September, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:28925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P No.2640 of 2025
-----
Victim ... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Kumar Mahto, S/o Devki Mahto, resident of
village Honhey, Nauwa Tola near Durga Mandir, PO Honhe, PS
Rajrappa, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand ... Opposite Party(s).
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Bhushan, Advocate
For the Opp. Party(s) : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
.........
02/19.09.2025: This application has been filed for cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted to opposite party no. 2 vide order dated
28.07.2025 in ABA No. 3947 of 2025 on the ground that the victim
was not heard at the time when bail was granted nor the State
was present.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
offence is very heinous thus the bail should not have been
granted. He relies on paragraph nos. 22, 23, 24 and 26 of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Jagjeet
Singh and Others vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu and Another"
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321 in support of his claim.
3. There is difference between cancellation of a bail and recall
of the order of bail granted. This is a case where the petitioner is
seeking cancellation of bail. No good ground has been made out
to cancel the bail as there is nothing to suggest that the opposite
party no. 2 is tampering with the evidence or he will not
cooperate in trial.
4. So far as merit of the case is concerned, the fardbeyan
clearly suggest that from 2021 to 2025 the parties were in good
relationship. Both the parties are major. Their failed relationship
has now been converted into criminal case. There is no ground to
consider this case for cancellation of bail also.
2025:JHHC:28925
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Vipan Kumar
Dhir v. State of Punjab" reported in (2021) 15 SCC 518 has held
as under:
"9. At the outset, it would be fruitful to recapitulate the well-
settled legal principle that the cancellation of bail is to be dealt
on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of
bail. It is necessary that "cogent and overwhelming reasons"
are present for the cancellation of bail. Conventionally, there
can be supervening circumstances which may develop post the
grant of bail and are non-conducive to fair trial, making it
necessary to cancel the bail. This Court in Dolat Ram v. State of
Haryana [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, para
4 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] observed that : (SCC pp. 350-51, para 4)
"4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial
stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be
considered and dealt with on different basis. Very
cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary
for an order directing the cancellation of the bail,
already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for
cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not
exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere
with the due course of administration of justice or
evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or
abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any
manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of
material placed on the record of the possibility of the
accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the
cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should
not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without
considering whether any supervening circumstances
have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to
allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during the trial."
...........................................................................
11. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited decision(s),
bail can also be revoked where the court has considered
irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on
record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable.
The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal
impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the
investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few
situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of
bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the
administration of criminal justice system. This Court has
repeatedly viewed that while granting bail, especially
2025:JHHC:28925
anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the
possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses,
threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from
justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation,
ought not to be overlooked."
6. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court so far as failed
relationship is concerned in the case of "Biswajyoti Chatterjee
vs. State of W.B." reported in (2025) 5 SCC 749 has held as
under:
"21. We find that there is a growing tendency of resorting to
initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour.
Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage
may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry,
in the event of a fall out. It is such lis that amounts to an abuse
of process of law, and it is under such circumstances, that we
deem fit to terminate the proceedings at the stage of charge
itself."
7. Taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "Vipan Kumar Dhir" (supra) and "Biswajyoti
Chatterjee" (supra) and the facts of this case, I am not inclined to
entertain this petition. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Tanuj/
