Nageshwar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18127 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -11 Year- 2016 Thana -ARIYARI District- SEKHPURA ====================================================== Nageshwar Yadav Son of Late Preman Yadav Resident of VillageHussainabad, P.S.-Ariyari, District _Sheikhpura. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bharat Lal For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyavarat Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.
20-07-2017 Heard Sri Bharat Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, apprehends his arrest in Ariari P.S. Case No. 11 of 2016 registered for offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, primarily on the ground that though, the petitioner was named as accused in the F.I.R., during investigation, the case was not found true and police exonerated him while submitting its report. However, in this case, the learned Magistrate, differing with the police report, has taken cognizance against the petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such cases, this Court may extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18127 of 2017 (2) dt.20-07-2017 2/2 It is true that normally, once statutory investigating agency exonerates the accused during investigation, the accused may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail, but this principle may not be treated as 'straight jacket formula' and in each & every case, same principle may apply. However, after perusing the F.I.R., in which, the widow/informant, who was also assaulted by four accused persons and in her presence, her husband was done to death and there is accusation, the Court is of the opinion that once in such circumstances, the learned Magistrate, differing with the police report, has taken cognizance, the petitioner may not be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T