Ranjeet Kumar Jha @ Ranjit Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.38915 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2016 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Jha @ Ranjit Kumar Jha Son of Sri Chandra Shekhar Jha resident of village - Manika, P.S. - Sarairanjan, District - Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Anmol Kumar Jha Son of Late Umashankar Jha
3. Santosh Kumar Jha Son of Late Umashankar Jha
4. Raja Kumar Jha Son of Late Umashankar Jha
5. Raghunath Jha Son of Late Shivshankar Jha
6. Vidyanand Jha Son of Late Shivshankar Jha
7. Tuntun Kumar Jha Son of Sushil Kumar Jha
8. Yashwant Kumar Jha Son of Pashupatinath Jha
9. Manoj Kumar Jha Son of Pashupatinath Jha All are residents of Village - Manika, P.S. - Sariranjan, District - Samastipur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pathak For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. SRI RAMCHANDRA SINGH ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-02-2018 The petitioner who is the informant of Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 39 of 2016 dated 16.02.2016 has challenged the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur in A.B.P. No. 730 of 2016 whereby the opposite parties no. 2 to 9 have been granted anticipatory bail. The case referred to above was lodged under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and at the time of grant of anticipatory bail charge sheet had not been submitted.
From the perusal of the order dated 30.05.2016, it appears
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38915 of 2017(2) dt.28-02-2018 2/2 that because of the fact that the nature of injuries were simple and only two offences viz. Section 307 and 379 of the IPC were non-bailable, the privilege of anticipatory bail was given to the opposite parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below while granting anticipatory bail wrongly relied upon the supervision note of the Dy. S.P. Though the court below has taken note of the supervision note, but has not solely relied upon the aforesaid document for granting anticipatory bail to the opposite parties.
No good ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to cancel the bail of the opposite parties. The petition is dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J) KKSINHA/- U T