Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33632/2015rejected

Ravi Prakash Ranjan @ Mintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2016-03-16The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33632 of 2015 Arising Out of Taraiya PS.Case No. -70 of 2014 Thana -Taraiya District- Saran ======================================================

1. Ravi Prakash Ranjan @ Mintu Singh, son of Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Molnapur, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran at Chapra. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Indra Kumar Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 16-03-2016 This is an application, made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Ravi Prakash Ranjan @ Mintu Singh, in connection with Taraiya P.S.Case No. 70 of 2014 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Perused the above application, and the materials on record including a copy of the order, dated 08.09.2014, passed, in A.B.P. No. 1368 of 2014 (4636/2014), by the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, rejecting the said application for pre-arrest bail. Heard Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Indra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33632 of 2015 (4) dt.16-03-2016 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 petitioner, this Court is of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case calling for giving him 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, ACJ) A.I./- U