Md. Taiyab Ali v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12510 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -194 Year- 2013 Thana -BANMANKHI District- PURNIA ====================================================== Md. Taiyab Ali S/o Usman R/o Village makhnaha, Uttar Tola, Ward No. 10, P.S. Banmankhi, District Purnea.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Dr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI ORAL ORDER 16-04-2015 This is an application, made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Md. Taiyab Ali, in connection with Banmankhi Police Station Case No. 194 of 2013 under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/324/307/504 of the Indian Penal Code. Perused the above application and materials on record including a copy of the order, dated 11.02.2015, passed, in A.B.P. No. 152 of 2015, by the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea, rejecting the said application for pre-arrest bail. Heard Dr. Bidhu Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Yogendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

The High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, stands on the same

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12510 of 2015 (2) dt.16-04-2015 2/2 footing as does a Sessions Judge inasmuch as a High Court and Sessions Judge have coordinate jurisdiction, while exercising power under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the fact that perusal of the materials on record reveals sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner and also indicates that custodial interrogation is necessary in order to carry out effective investigation, this Court is of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case calling for giving them benefit of pre-arrest bail. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is hereby rejected. (I. A. Ansari, J) Pawan/- U T