← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8938/2017rejected

Gulab Chand Mandal And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-08Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8938 of 2017 (3) dt.08-03-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8938 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -484 Year- 2013 Thana -ARARIA District- ARRARIA ======================================================

1. Gulab Chand Mandal, Son of Late Ram Tahal Mandal,

2. Golki Devi @ Goki Devi, Wife of Gulba Chand Mandal, Both resident of village - Mohanpur, P.S. Araria ( Bairgachhi ), District - Araria .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarangdhar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-03-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Araria P.S. Case No. 484/2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 17.12.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 45133/2014. Now the petitioner moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the husband of the deceased was put on trial vide S.Tr. No. 993/2014 and he was acquitted in absence of evidence. The petitioners are father-in-law and motherin-law of the deceased. It appears that about two and half years ago the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8938 of 2017 (3) dt.08-03-2017 anticipatory bail of the petitioners was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 45133/2014 and the same had already been withdrawn after some argument vide order dated 13.08.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33780/2014, but the petitioners evaded their appearance in the court. Therefore, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners, above named, on anticipatory bail. Accordingly the same is rejected. If the petitioners surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and pray for regular bail, their prayer shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T