Santosh Jha @ Santosh Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47035 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2023 Thana- TISIAUTA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Santosh Jha @ Santosh Kumar Jha Son of Late Bechan Jha Resident of Village -Pindauta Khurd, PS -Tisiauta, Dist- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No.II, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate Ms. Anjana Gupta, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI ORAL ORDER 16-08-2023 This application is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail in connection with Tisiauta P.S. Case No.26 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 420, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, learned APP for respondentState.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.
2/5
4. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submits that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. This Court has considered following aspects: (i) The allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR in question (ii) Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded by the applicant from the informant for treatment of his son. Initially Rs.1,50,000/- was
3/5 given by the informant to the present applicant and thereafter Rs.50,000/- was also paid to him. However, two cheques worth Rs.30,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively issued by the applicant got dishonoured, therefore, it is specific case of the applicant that the present FIR in question is filed with a view to harass the present applicant.
(iii) It is also contended that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature.
(iv) Two other co-accused have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.
(v) No other FIR is registered against the applicant.
8. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565.
9. Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant, named above, is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Tisiauta P.S. Case No.26 of 2023, on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like
4/5 amount to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-16, Vaishali at Hajipur on the following conditions:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation, whenever required; (b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 06th September, 2023 between 11:00 a.m. and 02:00 p.m.; (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
(e) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and, if having passport, shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week; and (f) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the competent Court would decide it on merits;
10. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such
5/5 application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
11. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
12. This application is, accordingly, allowed. (Vipul M. Pancholi, J.) Sanjay/- U T