Patna High Court - Orders
Suresh Kurmi & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 5 October, 2018
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1975 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -104 Year- 2006 Thana -CHOUTARWA District-
WESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)
======================================================
1. Suresh Kurmi, son of Dudhan Kurmi,
2. Mahendra Kamkar, son of Ganesh Kamkar,
3. Jang Bhar @ Jag Bhar, son of Jamuna Bhar,
All resident of village- Manjhariya, P.S.- Bhairoganj, District- West
Champaran.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR
SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 05-10-2018I.A. No.2600 of 2018 By way of the present interlocutory application preferred under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant no.1 has renewed his prayer for grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.
2. His application for bail was earlier rejected by a bench of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) vide order dated 18.08.2017. 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 12.09.2018 directed for listing of the application before the bench Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1975 o f 2017 (5) dt.05-10-2018 2/3 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 here that in the matter of Rupam Pathak vs. The State of Bihar through 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 before this court, 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 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. In Sudip Kumar versus The State of Bihar through C.B.I. Bihar, Patna and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 1836 of 2013), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the order passed by this court granting bail to the respondent Rupam Pathak Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1975 o f 2017 (5) dt.05-10-2018 3/3 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. This has been settled practice for consideration of petitions for bail which are filed repeatedly in the same case in the High Court."
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 appellant, vide order dated 18.08.2017, I am of the opinion that it would not be proper for me to consider the present interlocutory application through which the appellant no.1 has renewed his prayer for bail.
7. Let the file be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate order(s).
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md.S./-
U