Manoj Kumar Sahni And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46190 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Manoj Kumar Sahni S/o Nathuni Pd. Sahni

2. Manju Devi D/o Nathuni Pd. Sahni

3. Saroj Kumar S/o Nathuni Pd. Sahni

4. Ranuka Devi D/o Nathuni Pd. Sahni , residents of village Tarsarai, Police Station Sadar Darbhanga .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Navin Kumar Sahni Son Of Shiv Narayan Sahni Resident Of VillageNehra, P.S. Manigachhi, Dist- Darbhanga

3. Renu Devi Wife Of Shib Narayan Sahani Resident Of Village- Nehra, P.S. Manigachhi, Dist- Darbhanga ... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Prakash Chandra Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 02-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

By present application the petitioners want this Court to interfere with the orders, dated 06.04.2009 and 07.04.2009, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with Manigachhi Police station Case No. 76 of 2008, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga had granted regular bail to the opposite parties no.2 and 3.

Only submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga misconstrued the order dated 19.03.2009, passed by this Court in Cr.Misc.No.2397 of 2009, therefore the order granting bail to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46190 of 2013 (9) dt.02-08-2017 2/2 opposite parties no.2 and 3 is fit to be interfered with. A perusal of the orders dated 06.04.2009 and 07.04.2009, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga would show that pursuant to the direction given by this Court he had looked into the case diary and had applied his mind for purpose of grant of regular bail. The learned Sessions Judge vide order, dated 04.12.2010, passed in Cr.Misc.No.49 of 2010 refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga for the reasons stated in his order. I am not inclined to exercise my jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga as no glaring instance of illegality has been pointed out in the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. At the same time, there is no allegation of misuse of the privilege of bail by these opposite parties. The application is therefore dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Shashi.

U T