Guddu Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67968 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2014 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== GUDDU MISHRA Son of Ygya Mishra Resident of Village-Bariyaria Mishra Gram, P.S-Sangrampur, District-East Champaran............ ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR.

2.

Rani Kumari Wife of Guddu Mishra Resident of Village-Bariayria, P.S.- Sangrampur, District-East Champaran. Presently Resident of VillageKesariya, P.S.-Kesariya, District-East Champaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Tiwari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-10-2019 Petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 75 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3/ 4 D.P. Act. It appears from perusal of the record that petitioner was enlarged on provisional anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.01.2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous NO. 951 of 2015 with condition on payment of Rs.750/- per month to the complainant / informant. It further appears that petitioner was directed to take step for issuance of notice to the complainant/informant. It appears that petitioner has not taken step for issuance of notice as such earlier application for anticipatory bail was rejected for non-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67968 of 2019(2) dt.24-10-2019 2/2 compliance of the Court order.

It appears that petitioner has filed an application for restoration and that case was also dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2018 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 29705 of 2018.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he continues to pay the aforesaid amount to the informant/complainant but inadvertently he could not deposit the requisites as directed by the Court due to which his anticipatory bail application was dismissed for non-compliance. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer of bail.

Having heard both sides, considering the fact this application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned Court below within three weeks from the date of the order, and Court below after hearing both the parties and also considering the fact that he is still paying Rs. 750/- to the complainant will pass an appropriate order without being prejudiced by this order.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) T.Kr./- U T