Mukesh Kumar Raman v. The State Of Bihar Through The Vigilance Department Government Of Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9465 of 2015 Arising Out of Purnea Sadar PS.Case No. -582 Year- 2013 Thana - PURNEA SADAR, District- PURNIA ======================================================

1. Mukesh Kumar Raman Son of Sri Laxmi Safi resident of village - Rahitpur, P.O. Misraulia, P.S. Babubarhi, District - Madhubani .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Vigilance Department Government of Bihar, Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikas Ratan Bharti For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma(L/O(I.C.Vig)) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI ORAL ORDER 09-07-2015 This is an application, made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Mukesh Kumar Raman, in connection with Purnea Sadar P.S.Case No. 582 of 2013 under Sections 420/467/472/379/405/406/410/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Perused the above application, materials available in the case-diary and materials on record including a copy of the order, dated 22.12.2014, passed, in Special Case No. 57 of 2014, by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance-II, Patna, rejecting the said application for pre-arrest bail.

Heard Mr. Vikas Ratan Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R.K.Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9465 of 2015 (4) dt.09-07-2015 Vigilance.

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.

Because of the nature of incriminating materials available 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 him 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) A.I./- U