Jharkhand High Court
Shyam Bihari Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 April, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:10512 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3044 of 2025
------
Shyam Bihari Prasad, aged about 65 years, son of Late Ramjee Sah,
resident of Gram Hata, P.O.-Hata, P.S.-Chainpur, District-Kaimur
(Bhabua), Bihar.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Vishal Kumar Jaiswal @ Vishal Jaiswal @ Raj Verma @ Vicky @
Vishal Kumar Jaiswaal, aged about 19 years, son of Pradeep
Verma, resident of Village-Sahu Para, P.O.-Shitia Mandir, P.S.-
Fafadih, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
: Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate
: Ms. Rashika Bajaj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
For the OP 2 : Mr. Deepak Kr. Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, Advocate
——
Order No:-04 Dated:-10-04-2026
Heard the parties.
This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 528 read with Section 483(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for
cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 in terms of the order
dated 16.01.2025 passed by this Court in A.B.A. No.104 of 2025.
The brief facts of the case is that the allegation against the opposite
party no.2 is that, the opposite party no.2 has made a fake Aadhar Card
for grabbing the land of the informant by claiming to be the son of Raj
Kumar Jaiswal and in the proceeding of A.B.A. No.104 of 2025, the
opposite party no.2 filed a transfer certificate issued by Government
Primary School, Nauj, Ranchi wherein the opposite party no.2 was
described as the son of Raj Kumar Jaiswal.
Considering the facts of this case, the opposite party no.2 was given
the privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.01.2025 in A.B.A.
No.104 of 2025 and consequent upon the same, the opposite party no.2
furnished bail bond and was released on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party
no.2 has filed Original Suit No.232 of 2024 where he has described himself
to be the son of Pradeep Verma, hence, it is lastly submitted that the bail
granted to the opposite party no.2 be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case relies upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip
Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, wherein it was
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is now well
established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or
who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled
to any relief, interim or final.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Moti Lal Songara vs.
Prem Prakash reported in (2013) 9 SCC 199, where it has been observed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that when an order has been
obtained by practicing fraud and suppressing material facts before a
Court of law to gain advantage, the said order cannot be allowed to stand.
Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the state and the learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer
and submit that the case itself has been registered on the allegation that
the opposite party no.2 though is not the son of the Raj Kumar Jaiswal, but
he is claiming to be the son of the Raj Kumar Jaiswal and that is to be
adjudicated in that case itself, but when the case is yet to be tried, there is
no justifiable reason for this Court during the pendency of the trial to
cancel the bail on the self-same ground that the opposite party no.2 is not
the son of Raj Kumar Jaiswal as that will amount to pre-judging the trial,
which is pending before the trial Court, therefore, it is submitted that this
Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by
this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The
State of Jharkhand & Others passed in Cr.M.P. No.2499 of 2021 dated
01.04.2022 that the following are the grounds illustratively though not
exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled:-
(i) by indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii) interfering with the course of investigation,
(iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses,
(iv) threaten witnesses or indulge in similar activities which
would hamper smooth investigation,
(v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country,
(vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going
underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating
agency,
(vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his
surety, etc.Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against
the opposite party no.2 of indulging in any act or omission which will
make him liable for cancelation of his bail. The only allegation against the
opposite party no.2 is that the defence of the opposite party no.2 that he is
the son of Raj Kumar Jaiswal is a false one, hence, this Court is of the
considered view that since the same is the subject matter of the trial, that
is, as to whether the opposite party no.2 is the son of Raj Kumar Jaiswal or
not and the fate of the trial hinges upon that, so merely on the claim of the
petitioner that the opposite party no.2 is not the son of Raj Kumar Jaiswal,
itself is not sufficient ground to cancel the bail which has already been
granted to the opposite party no.2.
Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
10/04/2026
Abhiraj/