Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7670 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -168 Year- 2014 Thana -KHODAWANPUR District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar, Son of Asharfi Yadav, Resident of village- Sonebarsha, P.S.- Cheria Bariyarpur, Distt. - Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murlidhar(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI ORAL ORDER 14-05-2015 This is an application, made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar, in connection with Khodawandpur P.S. Case No. 168 of 2014 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Perused the above application, materials available on record including a copy of the order, dated 19.12.2014, passed, in A.B.P. No. 1582 of 2014, by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai, rejecting the said application for pre-arrest bail. Heard Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Murlidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. The High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C., stands on the same footing as does a Sessions Judge inasmuch as a High Court and Sessions Judge

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7670 of 2015 (2) dt.14-05-2015 2/2 have coordinate jurisdiction, while exercising power under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the only incriminating circumstance against him is the confession of the co-accused.

Even if the above submissions were true, the fact remains that as far as investigation of the case is concerned, confession of co-accused is a relevant consideration as it may help the investigation to be effectively carried and determine the guilt and involvement of the assailants.

Because of the nature of incriminating materials available against the petitioner, which indicate 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 him 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.) Mkr./- U