Tinku Kumar @ Tinku Paswan v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8690 of 2015 (4) dt.30-07-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8690 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -376 Year- 2014 Thana -SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Tinku Kumar @ Tinku Paswan S/o Jamun Rai Resident of Village - Dhuralakh, P.S. - Samastipur (M), District - Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prem Kr.Jha(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections406,420,506 of the Indian Penal Code.

This anticipatory bail application arises out of complaint case filed by the complainant.

It seems that by an order dated 19.3.2015, in order to explore the possibility of negotiated settlement between the parties, the matter was referred to Patna High Court, Mediation Centre. While referring the matter to the Mediation Centre, an interim protection was granted to the petitioner against any

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8690 of 2015 (4) dt.30-07-2015 coercive steps to be taken in connection with the said complaint case.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant informs that the petitioner has not honoured the order of this court dated 19.3.2015 and though enjoying the advantage of interim protection granted by the said order dated 19.3.2015, he did not appear at the Patna High Court Mediation Centre. In facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. The application for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is rejected.

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised. The Court expects that if he surrenders before the Court below and seeks regular bail, the Court below shall consider his case on its own merit without being prejudiced by rejection of the present anticipatory bail application.

This application is dismissed with the above observations.

ArunKumar/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) U