Patna High Court - Orders
Purushottam Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 19 November, 2010
Author: Birendra Prasad Verma
Bench: Birendra Prasad Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.41200 of 2010
1. Purushottam Kumar,
2. Amit Kumar,
3. Manoj Kumar
All above sons of Shri Narayan Kumar, residents of
village- Parsauni Kapur, P.S.-Patahi, District- East
Champaran (Motihari). --- Petitioners.
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR--Opp. Party.
-----------
2/ 19-11-2010Heard the parties.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a criminal prosecution for offence under section 307/34 and some other allied offences under the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and there is allegation of assault against them also besides others. It is also submitted that there is counter version from the side of the accused persons, vide Annexure-3. However, on close of investigation the police has submitted final form vide Annexure-2 for offences under section 341, 323, 325, 447 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, which all are bailable. In that view of the matter, the petitioners were granted bail by the police in terms of section 436(1) Cr. P. C. However, subsequently, the learned Magistrate disagreed with the police report and has taken cognizance under sections 341, 323, 325, 447, 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, this application for anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the 2 prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that since the petitioners had surrendered before the police and were on police bail, therefore, the present application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the State appears to be correct.
The present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances stated above. However, there is no allegation that after grant of bail by the police, the petitioners have misused the privilege of bail. Similar matters came up for consideration before this Court in case of Mahendra Prasad Singh Vrs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2004 (3) PLJR 491 as also in the case of Jagnarayan Yadav @ Babajee Yadav and others Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 2010(2) PLJR- 684 and in those cases, it was held that though petition for anticipatory bail was not maintainable, but once such accused persons surrender in the court below, then their prayer for regular bail was required to be considered favourably.
In the light of the observations made in those two cases, namely, Mahendra Prasad Singh (Supra) and Jagnarayan Yadav @ Babajee Yadav and others (Supra), the present application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to surrender in the court below in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 13 of 2010, pending 3 in the court of learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, within a period of four weeks from today and on their surrender, their prayer for regular bail shall be disposed of in the light of observations in the judgments referred to above.
Let this order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioners.
( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.) BTiwary/