Sudarshana Joyti v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.410 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3534 Year-2012 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran ====================================================== Sudarshana Joyti, wife of Rajiv Kumar, d/o late Jamuna Prasad, a resident of Jawahar Tola, P.S. Nawada, distrit Bhojpur, at present Railway Gandak Colony, Quarter No. 558, P.S. Samastipur, district Samastipur ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Rajiv Kumar

3. Alok Kumar, both sons of Shri Krishna Kumar, residents of Hanuman Nagar, Shyam Chak, Gudri Bazar, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, district Saran ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Harish Kumar, Adv.

For the State :

Smt. Asha Kumari, APP 197 For O.Ps. No. 2 & 3 :

Mr. Tep Pratap Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 8 19-07-2019 This application has been filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel the privilege of pre-arrest bail of opposite parties no. 2 and 3 as allowed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, vide A.B.P. No. 2716 of 2017 on 30.10.2017 in Complaint Case No. 3534 of 2012 registered under Sections 498A and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the time of allowing the privilege of pre-arrest bail, the argument was advanced on behalf of the opposite parties 2 and 3, who were petitioners in that application, to the effect that the petitioners had already filed Mithanpurra P.S. Case No. 147 of 2012 more or less on similar nature of case, but, vide A.B.P. No. 1413 of 2012 it would appear from the order, dated 02.04.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.410 of 2018(8) dt.19-07-2019 2/2 Complaint Case No. 3534 of 2012 filed by the petitioner was dismissed, but, that complaint case is still in existence. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 and 3 submits that after perusal of the record the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, arrived at the conclusion and gave his finding that earlier Complaint Case No. 3534 of 2012 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, at that time the complaint case was not in existence rather against the dismissal of the complaint case the petitioner has filed the criminal revision, as such, there is no factual error in order, dated 02.04.2013, of A.B.P. No. 1413 of 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur.

I find no reason to consider the prayer of the petitioner to cancel the privilege of pre-arrest bail granted to opposite parties no. 2 and 3 in A.B.P. No. 2716 of 2017 on 30.10.2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Shamshad/- U T