Patna High Court - Orders
Dabloo Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 July, 2017
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Sharan Singh, Chakradhari Sharan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.30417 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -47 Year- 2015 Thana -BARAHIYA District- LAKHISARAI
======================================================
1. Dabloo Singh, Son of Kailash Singh, resident of Village- Dhiradanr-
Jawas P.S.- Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Gogal Singh @ Vijay Singh.
3. Gopesh Singh, both are sons of Late Rajendra Singh.
4. Sanjeev Singh, Son of Late Bhagwan Singh,
5. Nako Singh @ Tarni Singh, Son of Late Kallar Singh, All resident of
Village- Dhiradanr- Jawas, P.S.- Barahia, District- Lakhisarai.
6. Golu Kumar, Son of Murari Singh,
7. Roshan Singh.
8. Chhotu Singh, Both sons of Sudhir Singh.
9. Gomal Singh,
10. Mukul Kumar, Both Sons of Gopesh Singh, All resident of Village-
Dhiradanr- Jawas, P.S. Barahia, District- Lakhisarai.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Reena Sinha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 24-07-2017Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Opposite parties No. 2 to 10 have been allowed anticipatory bail by the Court below in connection with Barihaiya P.S. case No. 47 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148,149,341,332,337,338,307,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code by an order, dated 17.05.2017.
This application has been filed for cancellation of bail so granted.
2
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions. He has submitted that earlier an application filed by the said Opposite parties was rejected by the court below and subsequently by order, dated 17.05.2017, the Court below on second anticipatory bail application allowed the Opposite parties No. 2 to 10 go on anticipatory bail. He has secondly submitted that the said Opposite parties has criminal antecedents and, therefore, anticipatory bail should not be granted.
From the pleadings on record, I find that certain dispute between the parties is the reason behind lodging of the cases. The cases which has been filed by the said Opposite parties are also in the nature of private dispute between them. In no event, exercise of discretion by the Court below while allowing the present Opposite parties on anticipatory bail cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse.
This application has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/-
U