Ramjeet Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.56952 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -105 Year- 1989 Thana -NASRIGANJ District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Ramjeet Singh, Son of Late Kanhaiya Singh.

2. Godhan Singh, Son of Late Nanhak Singh.

3. Ram Sakal Singh, Son of Late Kuldip Singh.

4. Yamuna Singh, Son of Late Mundrika Singh, All resident of VillageKhutaha, Police Station- Nasriganj, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Veena Rani Prasadd, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 01-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Nasriganj P.S.Case No. 105 of 1989 (Sessions Trial No. 236 of 1991) registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that police after investigation submitted charge sheet against accused Baban Yadav. These petitioners have been summoned under Section 319 Cr. P. C. during trial. Further submission is that these petitioners had earlier filed quashing application in this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 9293 of 1992 and further proceeding of the Sessions

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56952 of 2017 (3) dt.01-12-2017 2/2 Trial was stayed but aforesaid Cr. Miscellaneous was dismissed for default on 20.08.1997.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have no knowledge about the dismissal of quashing application in this Court.

From perusal of the record it appears that processes were also issued against the petitioners. It further appears that petitioners did not appear in the Court below for more than twenty years.

Considering such conduct of petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of order and make prayer for regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

.

(Sanjay Priya, J) Sudha/- U T