Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1698/2014dismissed

Shyed Sahabuddin @ Raja @ S.M. Sahabuddin v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-11-28Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1698 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2922 Year- 2011 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Shyed Sahabuddin @ Raja @ S.M. Sahabuddin Son of Md. Basruddin At Present C/o Ajay Kumar Yadav, Mohalla - Shahganj, P.S. - Sultanganj, District - Patna 800006 Permanent Resident Mandri Road Near Cold Storage, P.S. - Sadar, District - Hajaribagh, State - Jharkhand .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Laxman Prasad Gupta, Prop. Om Mahakal Printers, Mohalla - Amrudhi Gali, P.S. - Kadamkuan, District - Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Bijpuria, Md. Aslam Ansari(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is filed to quash the order dated 16.12.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 2922(c) of 2011, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Patna declined to extend the Provisional Bail to the accused/petitioner as granted till 13.12.2013 with direction to surrender before the Court fixing the date of hearing on 21.12.2013 of the Bail Petition on merit. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was allowed Provisional Bail

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1698 of 2014 (6) dt.28-11-2016 2/2 till 13.12.2013 vide order dated 12.11.2013 in connection with Complaint Case No. 2922C of 2011 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below with direction to account with the complainant and pay the amount if due on him and accordingly, the petitioner deposited Rs. 19,000/- in the Trial Court.

On going though the impugned order and material available on record, I find no illegality amounting to abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to raise his defence/submission before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage.

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