Patna High Court - Orders
Sunita Srivastava vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 20 June, 2017
Author: Sharan Singh
Bench: Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23710 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -515 Year- 2015 Thana -BAGHA District-
WESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)
======================================================
1. Sunita Srivastava Wife of Ajay Kumar Srivastava resident of Narayanpur
Ghat (Dumwaliya), Police Station-Bagaha (Patkhauli), District-West
Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Atul Kumar Verma Son of Prabhash Kumar Verma, Resident of Village-
Badgawn, Police Station-Bagaha, District-West champaran
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 20-06-2017Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
The petitioner got lodged First Information Report as Bagaha Police Station Case No. 515 of 2015, for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in which Opposite Party No. 2 has been made accused.
Considering the nature of accusation, the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran, at Bagaha, by order, dated 16.01.2016, passed in ABP No. 32 of 2016, granted the Opposite Party No. 2 privilege of anticipatory bail.
This application has been filed for cancellation of bail so granted to the said Opposite Party No. 2. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23710 of 2017 (3) dt.20-06-2017 2/2
Upon perusal of the application, I find that there is no allegation of any misuse of privilege of bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Opposite Party No. 2, by making false statement before the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran, at Bagaha, and on the basis of forged documents, has procured order of anticipatory bail in his favour. He has also submitted that the Opposite Party No. 2 has tampered with the records available in the Court below.
In response to a query made by this Court as to whether the petitioner has filed any complaint petition in the learned Court below in this connection, the answer is in the negative.
In that view, in my opinion, no case for cancellation of bail is made out. It seems that the petitioner in order to settle scores with Opposite Party No. 2 has filed this frivolous application, which is apparently misuse of the process of the Court.
This application stands accordingly dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √