Patna High Court - Orders
Ramashish Sharma & Anr. vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 December, 2014
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 29854 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -225 Year- 2013 Thana -KOTWALI District- PATNA
======================================================
1. Ramashish Sharma Son of Late Mukhlal Sharma
2. Madhusudan Sharma Son of Ramashish Sharma
Both are residents of Village-Pariyaban, P.S.-Ghosi, District-Jehanabad.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumod Kumar, Section Officer, Legal Cell, Patna High Court.
.... .... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr.
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
5. 02.12.2014Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant of Ghosi P.S. Case No. 240 of 2010.
The petitioners seek bail in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 225 of 2013 dated 02.05.2013 instituted under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though in the present case they have been made accused on the basis of an enquiry made by the Registrar General of this Court relating to forged document having been brought on record and used in a bail proceeding for procuring provisional bail but the petitioners were no way connected to such an offence. It is submitted that the affidavit before this Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29854 of 2014 (5) dt.02-12-2014 2/3 Court was neither affirmed by the petitioners nor they were party to supplying the document which was found to be forged and fabricated. It is submitted that petitioner no. 1 is an old age, whereas petitioner no. 2 has also been implicated only because he was father of the petitioner of the bail application in which this unfortunate incident has taken place. Learned counsel submits that petitioners are in custody since 13.04.2014.
Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail. It is submitted that during the enquiry by the Registrar General of this Court the petitioners have admitted that they had paid Rs. 1,11,000/- to the advocate of the Civil Court, Patna for getting the bail and once the bail was rejected, the counsel had also returned Rs. 90,000/- by cheque. It is submitted that the petitioners having admitted that they had got the bail application filed and also given money, cannot be absolved of the responsibility of any petition which has been filed in the proceeding on behalf of the said petitioner and moreso, in view of the fact that petitioner no. 1 is the grandfather and petitioner no. 2 is the father of petitioner of that bail petition. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners accepting the cheque of Rs. 90,000/- from the counsel clearly goes to show that they had been assured of getting bail but because the same could not materialize, the money was returned which also indicates Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29854 of 2014 (5) dt.02-12-2014 3/3 their mala fide intention of trying to manage judicial proceedings.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
However, the Court below shall expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.
U T