Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33875/2017dismissed

Ranjeet Kumar Sarraf @ Bablu v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-10-04Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33875 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -353 Year- 2011 Thana -MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Ranjeet Kumar Sarraf @ Bablu Son of Prahlad Prasad, R/o MohallaChhata Bazar, Gopaljee Lane, P.O. -Head, P.S.- Town, DistrictMuzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Prem Kumar, Son of Kailash Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Gopaljee Lane Chhata Bazar, P.S.- Town, District- Muzaffarpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nikunj Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 as well as learned counsel for the State. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite party who was extended the privilege of anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 31322 of 2014 on 28.07.2014 has suppressed his criminal antecedent while filing the said anticipatory bail application and it was only on account of such suppression of fact that the opposite party No. 2 was extended the pre-arrest bail. However, after hearing learned counsel for the opposite party and learned counsel appearing on behalf

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33875 of 2017 (4) dt.04-10-2017 2/3 of the State, it appears that apart from the two cases referred to in the earlier bail application against the opposite party No. 2, two other cases have also been registered against him which is evident from paragraph No. 6 of the present application for cancellation of bail. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that in the first case bearing Town P.S. Case No. 178 of 2012 dated 14.04.2012 final form had already been submitted in which the opposite party No. 2 has not been placed for trial. However, subsequently, he was summoned by the Court but the said summon was not received by him. So far as the other case being Town P.S. Case No. 509 of 2017 dated 10.07.2014 is concerned, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the same was lodged on the date when the bail application was filed before this Court and, therefore, it could not have amounted to suppression of fact.

Having heard the parties and keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner has not misused the privilege of bail and there is no other allegations which would impel this Court to cancel the earlier pre-arrest bail

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33875 of 2017 (4) dt.04-10-2017 3/3 order, the present application for cancellation stands dismissed.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Saif/- U T