Munna Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51084 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -47 Year- 2013 Thana -LAXMIPUR District- JAMUI ====================================================== Munna Paswan son of Harinandan Paswan, resident of village- Chinberia, P.S.- Laxmipur, District- Jamui .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh 5, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI ORAL ORDER 07-05-2015 This is an application, made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Munna Paswan, in connection with Laxmipur Police Station Case No. 47 of 2013 under Sections 386/387/379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Perused the above application and materials on record including a copy of the order, dated 21.11.2014, passed, in A.B.P. No. 982 of 2014, by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamui, rejecting the said application for pre-arrest bail. Heard Mr. Akhauri K. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. A.K.Singh 5, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

The High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, stands on the same

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51084 of 2014 (3) dt.07-05-2015 2/2 footing as does a Sessions Judge inasmuch as a High Court and Sessions Judge have coordinate jurisdiction, while exercising power under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the fact that co-accused, Tukan Yadav, has allegedly implicated the present petitioner in the commission of the offences and since the nature of the accusations requires custodial interrogation 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) Pawan/- U T