Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39110/2014rejected

Bachche Lal Sharma And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2015-04-16The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39110 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -325 Year- 2013 Thana -GHANSHYAMPUR District- DARBHANGA ======================================================

1. Bachche Lal Sharma son of Bal Govind Sharma

2. Gopal Sharma son of Bachche Lal Sharma Both are resident of village - Baur, Police Station - Ghanshyampur, District - Darbhanga .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. P.N.Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI ORAL ORDER 16-04-2015 This is an application, made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Bachche Lal Sharma and Gopal Sharma, in connection with Ghanshyampur Police Station Case No. 325 of 2013 under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Perused the above application and materials on record including a copy of the order, dated 16.07.2014/05.08.2014, passed, in A.B.P. No. 65 of 2014, by the learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, rejecting the said application for pre-arrest bail.

Heard Mr. G. C. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. P. N. Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

The High Court, while exercising its powers under

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39110 of 2014 (2) dt.16-04-2015 2/2 Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the fact that perusal of the materials on record reveals sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioners and also indicates that custodial interrogation is necessary in order to carry out effective investigation, this Court is of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the petitioners have not been able to make out any case calling for giving them 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) Pawan/- U T