Ashish Kundu And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23237 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -164 Year- 2015 Thana -KOTWALI District- PATNA ======================================================
1. Ashish Kundu Son of Late Charu Chandra Kundu, Proprietor of Rajdhani Seeds
2. Ripan Chandra Das @ Ripan Bangali Son of Late Radhika Ranjan Das, Proprietor of Krishi Enterprises, Both residents of in front of Jadughar, Opposite Patna Museum, Buddh Marg, P.S. Kotwali, District - Patna - 800001 .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :
Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra(App) For the Informant :
Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Ram Vinay Pd. Sinha @ Sanjay, Advocate.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Having regard to the nature of allegation for offence under Sections 147, 323,343, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, while this Court was inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners but the learned counsel for the informant has stated that statement given by the petitioners in the main bail application in Para 3 stating that both the petitioners had no criminal antecedent, was false and in fact, having been pointed out only by him, as would be found in the order dated 07.07.2015 of this Court, whereafter a
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23237 of 2015 (4) dt.21-08-2015 2/2 supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner on 10.07.2015 revealing their criminal antecedents. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petitioners therefore must surrender whereafter their prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by anything said in this order.
With the aforesaid observations the prayer for anticipatory bail of both the petitioners is, accordingly, rejected. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U