Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31063/2016allowed

Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Bharti v. The State Of Bihar

2016-11-23Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31063 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -37 Year- 2016 Thana -BARHARIA District- SIWAN ====================================================== Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Bharti, S/o Kashi Nath Bharti, R/o Village Sawana, P.S Barharia, District Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Awadhesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Kumar Virendra Narayan, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-11-2016 The petitioner, in the present application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of an order dated 29.06.2016 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Siwan whereby the petitioner's application for extension of time earlier granted to him to surrender for the purpose of his release, on anticipatory bail, has been rejected. From the records, it transpires that the petitioner was made an accused in Barhariya P.S. Case No.

37 of 2016, disclosing offence under Sections 147, 149, 347, 323, 324, 325, 427, 504 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner appears to have filed an application for anticipatory bail before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Siwan which was registered as ABP No. 474 of 2016.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31063 of 2016 (3) dt.23-11-2016 2/2 days of passing of the order. The petitioner could not appear within twenty days and on 29.06.2016, he applied for extension of time on the ground that being an Engineering student, since he had to appear at an examination, he could not comply with the said order dated 06.05.2016 and he did not appear within twenty days of the said order dated 06.05.2016.

The said application of the petitioner has been rejected by an order dated 29.06.2016, which has been challenged in the present proceeding.

Upon perusal of the two orders dated 06.05.2016 and 29.06.2016, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner appears to be bona fide. The order dated 29.06.2016 needs to be interfered with exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

This application is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 29.06.2016 is, hereby, quashed. The time granted by the court below by learned Additional Sessions JudgeII, Siwan in ABP No. 474 of 2016 by order dated 06.05.2016 is hereby extended by three weeks from today.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Vats/- U T