Dilip Kumar Sah @ Pappu Sah @ Dilip Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.41675 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -55 Year- 2014 Thana -BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBHAGALPUR ======================================================
1. DILIP KUMAR SAH @ PAPPU SAH @ DILIP SAH, Son of late Shyam Sundar Sah, Resident of Mohalla Sheikhawat Hussain Tola Police Station Kotwali District Bhagalpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Advocate Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aarsh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Lalan Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 55 of 2014, disclosing offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The petitioner was not named in the First Information Report. Even in course of investigation no material showing his involvement came to the fore. Police on completion of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41675 of 2016 (3) dt.20-10-2016 2/3 investigation submitted chargesheet against others but not against this petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that after submission of chargesheet statement of the informant was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein name of the petitioner has been mentioned but not as a perpetrator of the crime. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that merely on the basis that name of the petitioner has been taken in the said statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Police is behind the petitioner to arrest him. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner appears to be right in his submission that the said statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not make out any case of petitioner's involvement in commission of the offence.
Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that considering the gravity of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. However, considering the fact that there is no material showing petitioner's involvement for commission of offence, this application is allowed.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41675 of 2016 (3) dt.20-10-2016 3/3 Let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 55 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall present himself before the police/Court, as the case may be, as and when required and in the event of failure on his part to appear before the Court on two consecutive occasions, his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Vats/-c U T