Ramakant Tiwary And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.38616 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2127 Year- 2012 Thana -EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- EASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================
1. Ramakant Tiwary, S/o Late Amar Nath Tiwary, resident of VillageChaubey Tola Mahmada, P.S.-Mehsi, District-East Champaran
2. Bhagya Narayan Bhagat, S/o Late Mahadeo Bhagat, resident of VillageKonihiya, P.O.-Basghat, P.S. Chakia, District-East Champaran. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Benga Rai, S/o Late Lohri Ram, resident of Village-Rajpur Bara, P.S. Mehsi, District-East Champaran.
.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.1: Mr. T.N. Thakur, 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, Ramakant Tiwary and Bhagya Narayan Bhagat, in connection with Complaint Case No. C-2127 of 2012 under Sections 420/468/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Perused the above application and materials on record including a copy of the order, dated 25.08.2014, passed, in A.B.P. No. 0716 of 2014/1382 of 2014, by the learned Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, rejecting the said application for pre-arrest bail.
Heard Mr. V. K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. T. N. Thakur, learned Additional Public
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38616 of 2014 (3) dt.16-04-2015 2/2 Prosecutor, appearing for the State.
The High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, stands on the same 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 petitioners 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 petitioners have 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