Surendra Rai v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22853 of 2017 (3) dt.07-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22853 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -162 Year- 2009 Thana -BAKHTIYARPUR District- PATNA ====================================================== Surendra Rai Son of Yogi Rai, Resident of Village- Chiraiya, Harnahia, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Om Nath Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 07-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 162 of 2009 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in which Section 302 IPC was added later on and Section 27 of the Arms act.

This case is of the year 2009 and the petitioner is named in the first information report. The case is under Section 302 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Other co-accused have faced trial and were convicted by the learned trial court but have been acquitted in criminal appeals by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 02.03.2016.

Submission is of false implication and that as the case has been found not true against other co-accused, the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22853 of 2017 (3) dt.07-07-2017 deserves sympathetic consideration. The allegation of firing is also not against the petitioner and the petitioner is only the member of mob. The Police has not proceeded against him resulting he was not apprehended nor he has surrendered.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail by submitting that the petitioner has remained absconding since long and as such he does not deserve sympathetic consideration. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the period of abscondance, this Court is not persuaded to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T