Raj Kumar Singh @ Titu Singh @ Tutu Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.10595 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -57 Year- 2014 Thana -MAHILA PS District- JAMUI ======================================================
1. Raj Kumar Singh @ Titu Singh @ Tutu Singh Son of Sachchidanand Singh Resident of village - Itasagar, Police Station - Sikandra, District - Jamui.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI ORAL ORDER 03-07-2015 This is an application, made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Raj Kumar Singh @ Titu Singh @ Tutu Singh, in connection with Jamui Mahila P.S. Case No. 57 of 2014 under Sections 420/409/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Perused the above application, materials available on record including a copy of the order, dated 03.02.2015, passed, in A.B.P. No. 1325 of 2014, by the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya, rejecting the said application for pre-arrest bail. Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Zainul Abedin, learned
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10595 of 2015 (3) dt.03-07-2015 2/2 Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. 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.
Considering incriminating nature of materials 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 them 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, J.) Mkr./- U T