Jharkhand High Court
Victim vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:16587]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3356 of 2024
------
Victim ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Manoj Kumar Sinha, s/o Late Janardhan Prasad, r/o Quarter
no. 106, New AG Colony, Kadru, P.O. & P.S.- Argora, District-
Ranchi- 834002 (Jharkhand)
... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
——
For the Petitioner : Ms. Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Kataruka, Advocate
Ms. Usma Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate
------
Order No:-09 Dated:-20-06-2025
Heard the parties.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a
prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 in terms of the
order dated 21.11.2022 passed in B.A. No.10028 of 2022 in connection with
Argora P.S. Case No.163 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354D, 375A, 376C, 509 of the Indian Penal
Code.
The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party No.2 is the accused
person of the said Argora P.S. Case No.163 of 2022. Since the
commencement of the trial, the opposite party No.2 has been trying to
approach the victim and their family members to compromise the case, in
exchange of money, which was refused by the petitioner. The fiancé of the
petitioner received letter from an extremist organization namely PLFI on
03.08.2024 on his phone through a WhatsApp message, sent by the
President of Peoples’ Liberation Front of India (PLFI) which is a militant
Maoists outfit, stating that since the fiancé of the victim has disobeyed the
1
[2025:JHHC:16587]
group’s direction, he shall have to pay rupees ten lakh to the Peoples’
Liberation Front of India (PLFI) and also military action shall be taken
against him and the fiancé of the petitioner was warned by the Peoples’
Liberation Front of India (PLFI) from marrying the petitioner and to compel
the petitioner to withdraw/compromise the criminal proceeding instituted
against the opposite party No.2. As the petitioner did not give in to such
pressure tactics, now the opposite party No.2 has resorted to sending death
threat to the petitioner and her family members. On 01.09.2024 at around
2:45 PM, the petitioner received a call from a member of Peoples’ Liberation
Front of India (PLFI) group who threatened the petitioner that if she does
not compromise the criminal proceeding instituted against the opposite
party No.2, her fiancé will be killed and by way of supplementary affidavit,
the call details record has been provided by the petitioner; after this, the
fiancé of the petitioner also received calls from several unknown numbers.
Though the petitioner went to Hatia Police Station for lodging the FIR but
the matter is being delayed by the said police station. On 06.09.2024, the
petitioner lodged an online complaint bearing No.646518 describing the
threat calls of death by the opposite party No.2 through the Peoples’
Liberation Front of India (PLFI) contact.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that if the opposite
party No.2 is allowed to remain on bail, the same would cause interference
in conducting a fair trial and dispensation of justice to be done in this
matter. Drawing attention of this Court to the supplementary affidavit
dated 14.11.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the
opposite party No.2 is bent upon implicating the petitioner in frivolous
criminal proceeding in order to pressurize her to withdraw the criminal
proceeding instituted against the opposite party No.2. On 11.10.2024, an
auto rickshaw having no number plate hit the petitioner from behind while
she was travelling from Khunti to Ranchi on her two wheelers. The
petitioner has the strong reason to believe that the said act was orchestrated
by the opposite party No.2 for causing the death of the petitioner. On
19.10.2024, the opposite party No.2 along with his associates tried to falsely
implicate the petitioner in a criminal case by placing six bullets in the
vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. JH 23B 8958; while she
2
[2025:JHHC:16587]
was discharging her professional duty at her workplace. The petitioner
being unaware about the bullets kept in her vehicle, was returning to her
house but on the way, she was stopped by the police and upon recovery of
the bullets, Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.425 of 2024 was registered against the
petitioner. During the course of investigation of the said case, the Police
checked the CCTV footage of the petitioner’s workplace at D.A.V. Kapildev
School, Kadru and it was revealed that an unidentified person has placed
the bullets in the vehicle of the petitioner, to falsely implicate her in the
frivolous criminal case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her contention relies
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
State (Delhi Admn.) vs. Sanjay Gandhi reported in (1978) 2 SCC 411, para-
15 of which reads as under:-
“15. Our task therefore is to determine whether, by the
application of the test of probabilities, the prosecution has
succeeded in proving its case that the respondent has tampered
with its witnesses and that there is a reasonable apprehension that
he will continue to indulge in that course of conduct if he is
allowed to remain at large. Normally, the High Court’s findings
are treated by this Court as binding on such issues but, regretfully,
we have to depart from that rule since the High Court has rejected
incontrovertible evidence on hypertechnical considerations. If two
views of the evidence were reasonably possible and the High Court
had taken one view, we would have been disinclined to interfere
therewith in this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. But
the evidence points in one direction only, leaving no manner of
doubt that the respondent has misused the facility afforded to him
by the High Court by granting anticipatory bail to him.”
(Emphasis supplied)
and submits that the test in the case of prayer for cancellation of bail
is the test of probability. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Munilakshmi vs. Narendra Babu & Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1380, para-22 and 23 of which reads as under:-
“22. Where, on consideration of the facts and
circumstances of a case, the Court is satisfied that there are cogent
and overwhelming circumstances indicating misuse of concession
of bail, it becomes imperative upon the Court in the interest of
justice to withdraw such concession forthwith.
23. The expression “cogent and overwhelming
circumstances for cancellation of bail” has been well-illustrated by3
[2025:JHHC:16587]this Court in a catena of decisions including Dolat Ram v. State of
Haryana, which are:
(i) Evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abusing
or attempt to abuse the concession of bail granted;
(ii) Possibility of the accused to abscond;
(iii) Development of supervening circumstances impeding upon
the principles of fair trial;
(iv) The link between the gravity of the offence, the conduct of the
accused, and the societal impact on the Court’s interference.”
and submits that tampering with the evidence, threatening and
development of supervening circumstances impeding upon the principles
of fair trial are sufficient grounds for cancellation of bail granted to an
accused in a criminal case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Another reported in (2022) 15 SCC 211, para-25 of which reads
as under:-
“25. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the
accused under Section 439(1)CrPC can be cancelled are
enumerated below:
(a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other
criminal activity;
(b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;
(c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
(d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
(e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;
(f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth
investigation;
(g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
(h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going
underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating
agency;
(i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his
surety.
(j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are
considered unconducive to a fair trial.
We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in
nature and not exhaustive.”
and submits that in this paragraph, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
reiterated the circumstances, where bail granted to an accused person can
be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gurcharan Singh &
4
[2025:JHHC:16587]
Others vs. State (Delhi Administration) and allied case reported in (1978)
1 SCC 118, para-29 of which reads as under:-
“29. We may repeat the two paramount considerations,
viz. likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering
with prosecution evidence relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case
in a Court of Justice. It is essential that due and proper weight
should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. There
cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The
facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of
judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail.”
and submits that tampering with the prosecution evidence, is one of
the reason, which is detrimental to ensure a fair trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter relies upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Bihar vs.
Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Prasad Yadav @ Rajballabh Yadav reported
in (2017) 2 SCC 178, para-24 of which reads as under:-
“24. As indicated by us in the beginning, prime
consideration before us is to protect the fair trial and ensure that
justice is done. This may happen only if the witnesses are able to
depose without fear, freely and truthfully and this Court is
convinced that in the present case, that can be ensured only if the
respondent is not enlarged on bail. This importance of fair trial was
emphasised in Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra
[Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, (2005) 3 SCC 143 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 660] while setting aside the order of the High
Court granting bail in the following terms : (SCC pp. 147-48, para
13)”
and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
reiterated the settled principle of law that it is the duty of the court to
protect the fair trial and ensure that justice is done and fair trial can only
happen if the witnesses are able to depose without fear, freely and
truthfully. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this
Cr.M.P. be allowed.
Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned senior
counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose
the prayer of the petitioner to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party
No.2. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party No.2, drawing attention
of this Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party No.2,
submits that the allegation made in this Cr.M.P. for cancellation of bail is
5
[2025:JHHC:16587]
false and frivolous one. It is next submitted that charge has been framed
against the opposite party No.2 for having committed the offences
punishable under Section 354, 354A, 354B, 354D, 376C, 509, 511 of the
Indian Penal Code and summons has been issued to the witnesses. It is next
submitted that now some witnesses of the prosecution have been examined
but the victim has not yet been examined. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for
the State draws attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the
opposite party No.2 and submits that the police has served the notice of the
case upon the opposite party No.2. Hence, it is jointly submitted that this
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, 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 as already indicated above, a test for allegation and the
counter-allegations made in the matter of cancellation of bail is the test of
probability.
Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific
allegation against the opposite party No.2 of adopting all the tactics in book
to overawe the petitioner and cause all sorts of trouble, to pressurize her not
to proceed with a case involving serious offences against the opposite party
No.2. There is specific allegation by giving the mobile sim numbers, call
detail reports of threatening being given by the opposite party No. 2, to the
fiancé of the petitioner through the office-bearers of the militant Maoists
outfit namely the Peoples’ Liberation Front of India (PLFI). There is
allegation of petitioner being tried to be implicated falsely in a case
involving the offences, under penal provision of Arms Act, by putting six
live cartridges in her scooty.
True it is that in his counter-affidavit, the opposite party No.2 has
denied each and every allegation but when the materials available in the
record is weighed in the scale of probability, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the materials available in the record are sufficient to indicate
that a free and fair trial cannot take place unless the opposite party No.2 is
put behind the bars; because of the circumstances as discussed above.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
this is a fit case where the bail granted to the opposite party No.2- Manoj
6
[2025:JHHC:16587]
Kumar Sinha in terms of the order dated 21.11.2022 passed in B.A. No.10028
of 2022 in connection with Argora P.S. Case No.163 of 2022, be cancelled
because of the conduct of the opposite party No.2, in tampering with the
evidence, by threatening the witnesses and creating a circumstance where
his remaining outside the jail cannot be conducive for a fair trial and justice
to be done.
Accordingly, the bail granted to the opposite party No.2- Manoj
Kumar Sinha in terms of the order dated 21.11.2022 passed in B.A. No.10028
of 2022 in connection with Argora P.S. Case No.163 of 2022 is cancelled and
the learned trial court is directed to take all the coercive steps for his
apprehension for facing the trial.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Saroj/
7