Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17927/2017rejected

Uttam Rai And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-04-12Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17927 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Uttam Rai, Son of Late Gulab Rai

2. Rajesh Rai, S/o Late Gulab Rai

3. Radhey Kishun Rai, Son of Late Ganga Rai

4. Nanhak Rai, Son of Late Gulab Rai

5. Santosh @ Bazigar, Son of Late Ramswarup Rai

6. Arvind Rai, Son of Suraj Rai All Resident of Village- Gulmahiya Chak, P.S.- Didarganj, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Basant Kumar Tripathy For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-04-2017 Heard.

The petitioners are accused in connection with Didarganj P.S. Case No.71 of 2016. The petitioners had filed Cr.Misc.No.49786 of 2016 praying therein for grant of anticipatory bail in Didarganj P.S. Case No.71 of 2016. This Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners by order dated 21.12.2016 passed in Cr.Misc.No.49786 of 2016. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Cr.Misc.No.5475 of 2017 for extension of time to furnish bail bond on the ground that there was a mistake on the part of the petitioners in mentioning the case number which should have been Didarganj P.S. Case No.72 of 2016. The said fact is evident from perusal of the different

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17927 of 2017 (2) dt.12-04-2017 paragraphs of the modification application vide Cr.Misc.No.5475 of 2017. Considering the prayer, by order dated 08.03.2017, this Court allowed the modification in the case number, as prayed for, as well as allowed further four weeks time to furnish bail bond. Thereafter, the present application has been filed for extension of time to furnish bail bond in Didarganj P.S. Case No.71 of 2016.

The petitioners cannot be allowed to unnecessarily abuse the process of the court. Hence, prayer for extension of time is refused. The petitioners may surrender in the court below and pray for regular bail. The court below shall consider that the petitioners were allowed anticipatory bail in this case. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of.

Arvind/- (Birendra Kumar, J) U T