Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42028/2014dismissed

Chandra Kumar Mishra And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2015-02-18Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42028 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Chandra Kumar Mishra, son of Ramchandra Mishra, resident of village - Pahlam, Police Station Sakhua, O.P. Balmalahri, District - Saharsa.

2. Ramu Pd. Ram son of Late Sukan Ram resident of village - Bihra, Police Station - Bihra and District - Saharsa .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Goutam, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Uma Nath Mishra(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-02-2015

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Having regard to the prayer made with respect to modification of the order of this Court dated 19.04.2014 in Cr. Misc. No. 9513 of 2014, wherein eight weeks time had been given to the petitioners to deposit the amount, in question, i.e. Rs.4,37,500/- in case of petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 6,23,500/- in case of petitioner no. 2 for their being given privilege of anticipatory bail as per their own request made through the submission of their counsel and if therefore such amount was not deposited by the petitioners, there would be no occasion for modifying the aforesaid order dated 19.04.2014.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42028 of 2014 (2) dt.18-02-2015 2/2 petitioners that subsequently such recovery of amount was made from the petitioners on 19.08.2014, may therefore be a good ground for the petitioners to claim regular bail. The petitioners infact being named accused in F.I.R. lodged against them for offence under 409/467/468/420 and 120B I.P.C. have been happily absconding for more than seven years and therefore this Court would not find them entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail.

4. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. Nothing said in this order, however, shall come in the way of the petitioners in even now surrendering and making prayer for regular bail and if they do so, the trial court shall dispose of the application of the regular bail of the petitioners expeditiously.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U