Patna High Court - Orders
Ram Awadhesh Tiwary & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 2 November, 2018
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.892 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -10 Year- 2010 Thana -PAROO District- M UZAFFARPUR
======================================================
1. Ram Awadhesh Tiwary son of late Raghunath Tiwary
2. Gyatari Devi wife of Sri Ram Awadhesh Tiwary
3. Subhash Tiwary son of Sri Ram Awadhesh Tiwary
All resident of village Bishunpur Jeevnarain, Police Station Paroo, in the
district of Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 02-11-2018I.A. No. 2719 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 twice by a bench of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) vide orders dated 31.07.2017 & 08.03.2018. 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 26.09.2018 directed for listing of the application Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.892 of 2016 (7) dt.02-11-2018 2/3 before the bench 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 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial court. Her prayer made under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. was considered by a division bench of which I was one of the members and vide order dated 14.05.2012, the same was rejected. 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 before the Supreme Court 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. The Supreme Court in Sudip Kumar versus The State of Bihar through C.B.I. Bihar, Patna and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 1836 of 2013), while setting aside the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.892 of 2016 (7) dt.02-11-2018 3/3 order passed by this court granting bail to the convict Rupam Pathak 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."
(emphasis mine)
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 earlier vide orders dated 31.07.2017 & 08.03.2018, 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.) Kanchan/-
U T