Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4500/2018rejected

Bharat Kumar Mishra @ Bharat Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

2018-02-19Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4500 of 2018 (3) dt.19-02-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4500 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -138 Year- 2013 Thana -ITADHI District- BUXAR ====================================================== Bharat Kumar Mishra @ Bharat Mishra, son of Narendra Mishra, resident of Village- Chausa, Police Station- Buxar (M), District- Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rahul Nath For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Bachan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Informant and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner has been in custody since 05.12.2017 in connection with Itarhi P.S. Case No. 138 of 2013 for the offence registered under Sections 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that save and except suspicion, there is no further material against the petitioner so as to implicate the petitioner in connection with the present case. He further submits that his father Narendra Mishra who is alleged to have given the threat has since been extended he privilege of regular bail.

However, learned counsel for he informant submits

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4500 of 2018 (3) dt.19-02-2018 that the petitioner's anticipatory bail application was rejected wayback in the year 2014 itself, but the petitioner has been absconding since then and was arrested only lately. He further submits that in case the petitioner is enlarged on regular bail, he shall again be absconding and the trial of the case shall not reach its logical conclusion.

Be that as it may, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the material available in the case diary, this court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

However, liberty is afforded to him to renew his prayer for bail after the framing of charge by the trial Court. (Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U