Patna High Court - Orders
Sanjay Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 10 December, 2018
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2192 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2005 Thana- KOCHAS District- Rohtas
======================================================
Sanjay Singh & Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shyed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 10-12-2018I.A. No.2776 of 2018 By way of the present interlocutory application preferred under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants have renewed their prayer for grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.
2. Their application for bail was earlier rejected by a bench of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) vide order dated 06.09.2017. The said bench is available. The registry had placed the present interlocutory application before the same bench, but brother A.K. Trivedi, J., vide order dated 03.10..2018, directed for listing of the application before the bench to which the roster of the appeal has been assigned. That is how this matter has been placed before me.
3. In this regard, it would be pertinent to note that in the matter of Rupam Pathak vs. The State of Bihar through Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2192 of 2017(5) dt.10-12-2018 2/3 C.B.I., Bihar, Patna [Criminal Appeal (DB) No.393 of 2012], the appellant was convicted for charge of culpable homicide amounting to murder by the trial court. In appeal, a division bench of which I was one of the members, vide order dated 14.05.2012, rejected her prayer for bail. Subsequently, she filed an interlocutory application, vide I.A. No.2075 of 2012, which was listed before another division bench, which granted her bail, vide order dated 08.01.2013.
4. One Sudip Kumar challenged the aforesaid order dated 08.01.2013 granting bail to the convict Rupam Pathak before the Supreme Court vide Criminal Appeal No.1836 of 2013 on amongst others the ground that though her bail was earlier rejected by a division bench, which was available, the subsequent application for bail was entertained by another division bench.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the order passed by this court granting bail to the respondent Rupam Pathak observed as under:-
"We are of the considered opinion that the prayer for bail made by the respondent Ms. Rupam Pathak should have been considered, if at all, by the same Division Bench of the High Court which had earlier declined bail to the respondent by the order dated 14.05.2012. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2192 of 2017(5) dt.10-12-2018 3/3 This has been settled practice for consideration of petitions for bail which are filed repeatedly in the same case in the High Court." (emphasis mine)
6. Keeping in mind the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudip Kumar (supra), in view of the availability of the bench, which had earlier declined bail to the appellants, vide order dated 06.09.2017, I am of the opinion that it would not be proper for me to consider the present interlocutory application through which the appellants have renewed their prayer for bail.
7. Let the file be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate order(s).
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/-
U