Gopal Prasad Gupta And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.12351 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -151 Year- 2008 Thana -NASRIGANJ District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Gopal Prasad Gupta
2. Radha Raman Gupta @ Radha Raman Prasad Gupta Both sons of Late Kashi Nath Gupta, resident of village- Jamapur, P.S. Nasriganj, District- Rohtas.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Ramdeni Chaudhary, son of Late Jawahir Chaudhary, resident of village- PanduRI, p.s.- Nasriganj, District- Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durgesh Nandan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Asha Devi(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 28-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional P.P.
The petitioners are apprehensive regarding their arrest relating to Nasriganj P.S.Case No. 151/2008 registered under Sections 307, 355, 504/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Petitioners, who were earlier named, were not sent up by the Investigating Officer however, differing therefrom, they have also been summoned and on the aforesaid ground, petitioners were directed to avail anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 44651/2011 which they did not avail as failed to furnish bail bonds within the stipulated period, which was later on extended up to 2nd May, 2012 in Cr. Misc No. 15458/2012 which was also frustrated
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12351 of 2016 (2) dt.28-03-2016 2/2 and for that there happens to be an explanation. At the relevant time, the members of the Bar boycotted the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Rohtas. Again made a prayer for extension in Cr. Misc. No. 35314/2012 and the same was rejected vide order dated 05.09.2012. The instant petition has been filed in the year, 2015 without assigning cogent reason for such long gap. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner is also not in a position to disclose whether the petitioners have been declared absconder or not on account of their long absence. However, it has also been submitted that the matter has been compromised amongst the parties.
That being so, the learned lower Court will see and pass appropriate order in the back ground of aforesaid eventualities in case petitioners surrender and prefer prayer of bail. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition is disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Sudha/- U T