Patna High Court - Orders
Basmati Devi & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 12 November, 2014
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.37736 of 2013
======================================================
1. Basmati Devi Wife Of Subhash Manjhi Resident Of Village - North
Kadna, P.S.- Garkha, District- Saran, Chapra (Bihar)
2. Lalan Paswan @ Lallan Manjhi Son Of Subhash Manjhi Resident Of
Village - North Kadna, P.S.- Garkha, District- Saran, Chapra (Bihar)
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. A.L.Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR
SINGH
ORAL ORDER
04/ 12-11-2014Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.
The petitioners have renewed their prayer for anticipatory bail in Garkha P.S. Case No. 261 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
Initially the petitioners filed Cr.
Misc. No. 29697 of 2011 which was permitted to be withdrawn on 26.09.2011 with liberty to surrender before the learned court below and pray for regular bail. Thereafter, the petitioners renewed their prayer for anticipatory bail vide Cr. Misc. No. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37736 of 2013 (04) dt.12-11-2014 2 33325 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2012 since it was submitted that final form has been submitted and cognizance has not been taken, hence, it was held that the petitioners have no apprehension. Now the prayer has been renewed on the ground that on wrong instruction it was submitted that the cognizance was not taken on the earlier occasion rather cognizance was taken on 15.05.2012 differing with the final form.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that thrust of accusation is against Anil with whom the victim was in love and charge-sheet was submitted against Anil only and petitioners were not sent up for trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that the victim has supported the accusation against the petitioners also in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
Since the initial anticipatory bail application was permitted to be withdrawn for consideration of regular bail on merits vide Cr. Misc. No. 29697 of 2011, this Court is not inclined to interfere.
Let the learned court below consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners keeping in view of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37736 of 2013 (04) dt.12-11-2014 3 the fact that the accusation was found false and petitioners were not sent up for trial and the fact that the others have been granted bail.
With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/-
U T