Patna High Court - Orders
Mishri Lal Thakur @ Ram Krishan Thakur & ... vs State Of Bihar on 19 May, 2017
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Ravi Ranjan, Vikash Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.783 of 2004
======================================================
Mishri Lal Thakur @ Ram Krishan Thakur & Ors.
.... .... Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Appellants : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN)
6 19-05-2017I.A. No. 559 of 2017 Heard learned counsel for the informant as well as the appellants.
This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the informant for cancellation of bail of the appellants granted vide order dated 10.11.2004 and 08.12.2004.
It is contended that the appellants were convicted under Section 302/149/148 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 464 of 1999/192 of 2002 vide judgment and order dated 05.11.2004 passed by the Fast Track Court No. 1, Madhubani. The present appeal has been filed against that conviction and sentence by the convicts. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 10.11.2004 and thereafter on 08.12.2004, had directed the appellants to be released on bail. However, it is urged that soon after their release, the appellants Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.783 of 2004 (6) dt.19-05-2017 2 were constantly threatening the informant and his family members with dire consequences as they are influential and powerful persons. Thus, it is urged that, since they have misused the privilege of bail granted by this Court, their bail bonds shall be cancelled. It is further stated that the informant made an application to the Sarpanch on 18.02.2017 regarding threat on his life at the behest of the appellants and, after enquiry, the Sarpanch recorded a note that the informant is under such threat.
A rejoinder to the aforesaid interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellants. It is stated in the reply that the allegation is false and frivolous. Though the informant has made an allegation that they were being threatened at the behest of the appellants from the date when they were released on bail, however, prior to 18.02.2017, no such application was made before any competent forum. After about 12-13 years, such application has been filed. During the interregnum, nothing was done by the informant to demonstrate that there was any threat upon his life. It is contended that the real reason for filing of application is the fact that the wife of the appellant no. 1 has been elected as the Mukhiya of Karhara Gram Panchayat and due to politics the Sarpanch has made some unwanted bald remarks without proper enquiry.
We have considered the rival contentions and upon such consideration we do not find force in the submission made on behalf of the informant. Had it been the case that since the very Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.783 of 2004 (6) dt.19-05-2017 3 beginning, after release of the appellants on bail, informant or his family was being threatened, a complaint could have easily been lodged before the police or any competent forum including this Court. But this was never done. Not even a chit of paper was filed before any competent forum for the last 12-13 years. Suddenly, on a particular date he writes a letter to the Sarpanch, who has nothing to do with the present matter when this Court is in seisin of the same. The Sarpanch merely writes in the margin that he has enquired into the matter. In fact no material has been brought on record to show that there was some sort of actual threat, except the report of the Sarpanch. It is also not clear what enquiry has been done by the Sarpanch as there is no report available.
Thus, according to us, no case for cancellation of bail could be made out.
Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application is dismissed.
However, it does not mean that if some actual threat is faced by the informant in future, he would not be at liberty to approach competent forum in accordance with law.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)
(Vikash Jain, J)
Chandran
U T