Vikash Kumar Singh And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39308 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3141 Year- 2013 Thana -SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSARAN ======================================================

1. Vikash Kumar Singh, S/o Raj Kishore Singh

2. Ajay Kumar Singh, S/o Raja Singh Both resident of Village-Pojhi, P.S.-Marhawrah, District-Saran at Chapra .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Satya Prakash, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI ORAL ORDER 16-04-2015 This is an application, made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioners, namely, Vikash Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh, in connection with Complaint Case No. 3141-C of 2013 under Sections 420/467/468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Perused the above application and materials on record including a copy of the order, dated 22.08.2014, passed, in A.B.P. No. 1504 of 2014, by the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, rejecting the said application for pre-arrest bail. Heard Mr. D. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned Additional Public

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39308 of 2014 (2) dt.16-04-2015 2/2 Prosecutor, appearing for the State. Heard also Mr. Satya Prakash, learned counsel, appearing for the informant. The High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the fact that perusal of the materials on record reveals sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioners and also indicates that custodial interrogation is necessary in order to carry out effective investigation, 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) Pawan/- U T