Manil Kumar Sahni @ Manil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28828 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-551 Year-2022 Thana- BAGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== MANIL KUMAR SAHNI @ MANIL KUMAR SON OF CHHOTEY LAL SAHNI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - ANAND NAGAR, P.S. - BAGAHA, DISTT. - WEST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ravi Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 02-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bagaha P.S. Case No. 551 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. At the very outset, the learned APP has submitted that it appears that the process under Section 82 & 83 of the Cr. P.C. has been executed and in view of the recent decision in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Another (2021 SCC online SC 955), this application is not maintainable.
4. Taking the aid of the orders dated 16-01-2019, 15-122021 & 04-07-2022 passed by co-ordinate benches of this Court in Cr. Misc. Nos. 75288 of 2018, 1118 of 2021 & 38750 of 2021 respectively, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28828 of 2023(4) dt.02-08-2024 2/3 has already been filed before issuance of processes under Sections-82 & 83 of the Cr.P.C., the present application is maintainable.
5. Having taken into consideration the view taken by the coordinate benches of this court, I differed with the same and passed an order dated 14-12-2022 in Cr. Misc. No. 31565 of 2022 dealing with the aforesaid orders. Relevant part of the order dated 14-122022 passed by this court in Cr. Misc. No. 31565 of 2022 is extracted hereinbelow:
"As already mentioned, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that anticipatory bail petition was filed before issuance of process under section 82 of the 'Code'. In this respect, my humble view is that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) and in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad vs. the State of Bihar and another (supra) does not make any distinction whether anticipatory bail petition is filed before or after passing of order under section 82 of the 'Code'. Merely because the petitioner has preferred anticipatory bail petition prior to order passed under section 82 of 'the Code', it does not ipso facto make him entitle to the privileges for anticipatory bail".
6. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances as well as the decisions as-referred-above, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28828 of 2023(4) dt.02-08-2024 3/3 which is hereby, rejected.
7. If the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail before the court below, his bail application shall be considered on its own merit, without being prejudiced by this order. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T