Satrughan Mishra v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.40262 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -90 Year- 2014 Thana -SHIWAPATHI District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================
1. Satrughan Mishra Son of Late Ramdeo Mishra Resident of Village - Chatursi, Police Station - Siwaipatti, District - Muzaffarpur at present residing at Chauri Road, Police Station - Bhadohi, District - Bhadohi (U.P.) .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI ORAL ORDER 10-04-2015 This is an application, made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Satrughan Mishra, in connection with Siwaipatti P.S.Case No. 90 of 2014 under Sections 341/323/498A/504/506/120B/364/420/424/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Perused the above application, materials available on record including a copy of the order, dated 03.09.2014, passed, in A.B.P. No. 1559 of 2014, by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, rejecting the said application for pre-arrest bail.
Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Arun Kumar, learned
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40262 of 2014 (2) dt.10-04-2015 2/2 Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. 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 perusal of the materials on record reveals sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner and also indicates that custodial interrogation is necessary in order to carry out effective investigation, this Court is of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case calling for giving him benefit of pre-arrest bail.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is hereby rejected. (I. A. Ansari, J.) Mkr./- U T