Chandan Rai v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.50928 of 2014 Arising Out of Complaint Case No. -2064 Year- 2012, Trial No. 4687 of 2013, Thana -GOPALGANJ, District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================
1. Chandan Rai S/O Late Brijnandan Rai, Resident of Village -Shankarpur P.S-Ashav,District-Siwan .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kayal Devi D/O Dhuvendar Rai, Resident of Village -Shankarpur P.SAshav,District-Siwan .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishor Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI ORAL ORDER 02-07-2015 This is an application, made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Chandan Rai, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2064 of 2012 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Perused the above application and materials on record including a copy of the order, dated 19.11.2014, passed, in A.B.P. No. 1650 of 2013, by the learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, rejecting the said application for pre-arrest bail. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Nand Kishor Pd, learned APP, appearing for the State.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50928 of 2014 (5) dt.02-07-2015 The High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C., 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 Cr.P.C.
Considering the fact that the summon has been issued against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 2064 of 2012, it is clear that the petitioner cannot be said to have any genuine apprehension of arrest and he could not have, therefore, applied for anticipatory bail.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is hereby rejected as not maintainable at this stage.
It is made clear that this order of rejection shall not prejudice the jurisdiction of the learned Court below to dispose of application for bail of the petitioner if the petitioner appears, in the learned Court below, in connection with the case aforementioned and applies for bail.
(I. A. Ansari, J) A.I./- U