Amar Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36387 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -64 Year- 2017 Thana -BALIA District- BEGUSARAI =========================================================== Amar Chaudhary, son of Late Gobind Chaudhary, resident of Village-Sati Chaura, Police Station-Balika, District-Begusarai.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Md. Asif, son of Md. Sultan, resident of Village-Lakhminiya, P.S.-Balia, District-Begusarai.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. A.K. Chandra, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. R.B. Roy Raman, APP : Mr. Ajay Kr. Sinha, Adv.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT & ORDER Date: 07-08-2017 Heard the parties.

2. Opposite party No. 2 is an accused in Balia P.S. Case No. 64 of 2017, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326, 307 and 504/36 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai, by an order,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36387 of 2017 dt.07-08-2017 2/3 dated 24.06.2017, has allowed him the privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. This application, under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed seeking cancellation of bail by the informant of the case, mainly on the ground that anticipatory bail application of similarly circumstanced co-accused, namely, Md. Sonu, was rejected by the court below and immediately, thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

4. On perusal of the impugned order and the allegation as made in the First Information Report, I find that there is no illegality in exercise of discretion by the court below while allowing opposite party No. 2, the privilege of bail, since there is no allegation that the fire, opened by the said opposite party, hit the informant. It is true that anticipatory bail application of other co-accused, namely, Md. Sonu, in similar circumstance, has been rejected by the court below, but grant of bail to opposite party No. 2, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not appear to be incorrect exercise of discretion.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36387 of 2017 dt.07-08-2017 3/3

5. This application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Praveen-II/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 08/08/17 Transmission Date 08/08/17