Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28692/2017rejected

Md. Kuddus And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-07Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28692 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -292 Year- 2013 Thana -VAISHALI District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Md. Kuddus Son of late Md. Dilijan @ late Md. Diljan

2. Md. Khurshid Son of Md. Kuddus

3. Md. Sattar Son of Abdul Sattar @ Md. Gafoor

4. Md. Wasi @ Md. Qsi Son of late Md. Esha

5. Amina Khatoon Son of Md. Wasi

6. Md. Nazir Son of Md. Wasi All Resident of Village- Muja Pakari P.S. Vaishali , (Belsar O.P), District- Vaishali .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP 192 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-07-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail for offence under Sections 341, 323, 379, 313 and 511/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Initially the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, the petitioners did not furnish bail bonds in pursuance of the order of the learned Sessions Judge and after about one and half years made prayer for extension of the time for furnishing bail bonds. The learned Sessions Judge has refused the same and directed the petitioners to surrender and prayer for regular bail. Since, the anticipatory bail has already been granted by the learned Sessions Judge, the present prayer for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

Hence, it stands dismissed.

There is no question of interference with the order of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28692 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 2/2 the learned Sessions Judge refusing extension of time when the prayer was made after such a long delay and the petitioners were not willing to obey the direction of the Court at earliest. Hence, prayer for extension of time is also not entertainable.

(Birendra Kumar, J) SA/- U √ T √