This court dismissed the petitioner's petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash the Sessions Judge's order rejecting an undertaking required for anticipatory bail. The court held there was no specific condition requiring land transfer.
The petition seeking to quash the Sessions Judge's order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9042 of 2012 =================================================== Lalita Devi wife of Nagendra Rajak, Resident of MohallaTatma Toli, Flour Mills Road, P.S.-Khazanchi Hat (Maranga), District- Purnia. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Arjun Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Haldhar Prasad Sinha. 3. Smt. Sarita Sinha, Wife of Arjun Kumar Sinha. Both resident of Mohalla- Teachers Colony, P.S.Khazanchi Hat (Maranga), District Purnia. .... .... Opposite Parties =================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kr. Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.K.Chaurasia, APP =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3. 29-04-2014 Heard Sri Siyaram Sahi, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Chaurasia, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Bajrangi Lal, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opp. party no. 2 & 3.
The petitioner, who is complainant, has approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with a prayer to quash an order dated 05-11-2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 04 of 2011 by the learned Sessions Judge, Purnia (in short “Sessions Judge”). By the said order, petition filed by the petitioner for directing the private opp. parties to abide by his undertaking before the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9042 of 2012 (3) dt.29-04-2014
2/3
learned Sessions Judge has been rejected.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, learned Sessions Judge had noticed the submission of learned counsel for accused that petitioner no. 2 was ready to transfer another land in lieu of the land granted in favour of the complainant. It was argued that since anticipatory bail was granted on the submission made by learned counsel for private opp. party before the court below, it was necessary for the learned Sessions Judge to direct the accused persons to transfer the land as was submitted at the time of granting anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Bajrangi Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opp. party no. 2 & 3 have opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that anticipatory bail was not granted on the basis of any undertaking given on behalf of opp. party no. 2, rather at the time of pressing bail petition, submission was only made. However, learned Sessions Judge, while granting anticipatory bail, had noticed that no case under Section 420 was made out. It was also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that it was a case of civil dispute.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9042 of 2012 (3) dt.29-04-2014
3/3
In view of the fact that there was no such specific condition, the learned Sessions Judge by its order dated 05-11-2011 has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.)
Anay
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Judge rightly rejected the petitioner's petition to quash the earlier order directing private opposite parties to abide by an undertaking required for anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lalita Devi
The State of Bihar
Arjun Kumar Sinha
Smt. Sarita Sinha
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
