Gopal Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39740 of 2015 (3) dt.10-02-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39740 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1822 Year- 2014 Thana -GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Gopal Prasad, Son of Late Sahdev Prasad, resident of village- Rampur Khareya, Tola- Bhual Khutwaniya, P.S.- Kuchaik District- Gopalganj (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Ramesh Chandra Singh

3. Shailesh Chandra Singh Both sons of Moti Chandra Singh, resident of Geharipatti (Sikatia) P.O.- Langari Hatta, District- Kushinagar, (U.P.).

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha For the Opposite Party/s Mr. Gopesh Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 03/ 10.02.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 30.1.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 4154/2015 on the ground that in-laws of complainant's daughter is not taking interest to settle the dispute of complainant's daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards order dated 9.3.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 6074/2015 and submitted that when husband of complainant's daughter approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail, this court directed opposite party no.2 to appear before the court so-that dispute could be resolved

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39740 of 2015 (3) dt.10-02-2016 but opposite party no.2 did not appear before the court and lastly, prayer for anticipatory bail of husband of complainant's daughter was rejected by this court against which husband of complainant's daughter approached Apex Court of this country but his prayer for bail was rejected by Apex Court of this country also. It is further submitted that even after rejection of prayer for anticipatory bail by Apex Court, husband of complainant's daughter did not appear before trial court for near about five months and after that he surrendered and he is still in jail. It is further contended by him that if anticipatory bail granted to opposite party nos.2 and 3 is cancelled by this court, matter could be settled between the parties.

I am not at all convinced with the aforesaid submissions and in my view, there is no ground to cancel the bail granted to opposite party nos.2 and 3 and accordingly, this petition does not have any merit and stands dismissed.

Shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J) U T