IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60859 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1528 Year-2019 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Urmila Devi Wife of Sri Shaligram Paswan R/O Vill.- Satnagar, Satjori, P.s.-Goradih, Dist.- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shiv Narayan Paswan @ Kalicharan Paswan Son of Jitu Paswan R/O Vill.-Satnagar, Satjori, P.s.- Goradih, Dist.- Bhagalpur 3. Vibhisan Paswan Son of Sri Narayan Paswan @ Kalicharan Paswan R/O Vill.- Satnagar, Satjori, P.s.- Goradih, Dist.- Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate For the State : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 23-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State 2. This application has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 by the learned In-charge Magistrate, Bhagalpur, vide order dated 16.04.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No.1528 of 2019 registered for the offence under Sections 354(B)/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. I have perused the impugned order granting bail to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and also perused the F.I.R. I do not find any error in the impugned order. It appears that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60859 of 2024(2) dt.23-07-2026 2/2 petitioner has also challenged the order of the Magistrate before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhagalpur by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.94 of 2023, which was dismissed on 01.03.2024. Further, no supervening circumstance has been brought on record to show that the opposite party nos.2 and 3 have misused the privilege of bail. 4. In view of the above, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is rejected. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Shalini/ pawan U T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60859 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1528 Year-2019 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Urmila Devi Wife of Sri Shaligram Paswan R/O Vill.- Satnagar, Satjori, P.s.-Goradih, Dist.- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shiv Narayan Paswan @ Kalicharan Paswan Son of Jitu Paswan R/O Vill.-Satnagar, Satjori, P.s.- Goradih, Dist.- Bhagalpur 3. Vibhisan Paswan Son of Sri Narayan Paswan @ Kalicharan Paswan R/O Vill.- Satnagar, Satjori, P.s.- Goradih, Dist.- Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate For the State : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 23-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State 2. This application has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 by the learned In-charge Magistrate, Bhagalpur, vide order dated 16.04.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No.1528 of 2019 registered for the offence under Sections 354(B)/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. I have perused the impugned order granting bail to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and also perused the F.I.R. I do not find any error in the impugned order. It appears that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60859 of 2024(2) dt.23-07-2026 2/2 petitioner has also challenged the order of the Magistrate before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhagalpur by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.94 of 2023, which was dismissed on 01.03.2024. Further, no supervening circumstance has been brought on record to show that the opposite party nos.2 and 3 have misused the privilege of bail. 4. In view of the above, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is rejected. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Shalini/ pawan U T