Sarpanch Yogendra Das @ Yogendra Das And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.15813 of 2015 Arising Out of Kahalgaon PS.Case No. -486 Year- 2013 Thana - KAHALGAON District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================
1. Sarpanch Yogendra Das @ Yogendra Das Son of Bhagirath Das of Village- Sikandrapur, P.S.- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur
2. Kaushal Kumar @ Kaushal Yadav Son of Bishwambhar Yadav of Village Salempur Shrisy, P.S. Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiwesh Chandra Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sakir Ahmad (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI ORAL ORDER 10-07-2015 This is an application, made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioners, namely, Sarpanch Yogendra Das @ Yogendra Das and Kaushal Kumar @ Kaushal Yadav, in connection with Kahalgaon P.S.Case No. 486 of 2013 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Perused the above application, materials available in the case-diary and materials on record including a copy of the order, dated 24.02.2015, passed, in A.B.P. No. 282 of 2015, by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, rejecting the said application for pre-arrest bail.
Heard Mr. Shiwesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15813 of 2015 (3) dt.10-07-2015 the petitioners, and Mr. Sakir Ahmad, learned APP, appearing for the State.
The High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C., stands on the same footing as does a Sessions Judge inasmuch as a High Court and Sessions Judge have coordinate jurisdiction, while exercising power under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Because of the nature of incriminating materials available against the petitioners, this Court is of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the petitioners have not been able to make out any case calling for giving them 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) A.I./- U