Dismissed

Ravi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC28 Sept 2016CR. MISC./36823/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected anticipatory bail application in a case involving offences under Section 302 IPC. Court held that emergence during investigation in a murder case precludes privilege of anticipatory bail, directing surrender for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; petitioner directed to surrender within four weeks to seek regular bail.

Ravi Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36823 of 2016

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -18 Year- 2016 Thana -SARAN GRP CASE District- SARAN ====================================================== Ravi Kumar s/o- Umashankar Mahto, resident of Village- Dumduma, P.S.Daudpur, Dist- Saran at Chapra. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶3

3 28-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶4

This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Chapra Rail P.S. Case No. 18 of 2016, disclosing offence under Sections 302, 307 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

Since this application arise out of a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in course of investigation, petitioner’s name has surfaced in commission of the offence, I am not inclined to grant him privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶6

Submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he is not named in the First Information Report though persons against whom there is allegation, have been named and, therefore, the

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36823 of 2016 (3) dt.28-09-2016

¶8

2/2

¶9

petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail has not convinced. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in course of investigation some of the witnesses disclosed names of other accused persons but not this petitioner. Such stand can be taken by him in course of investigation or while seeking regular bail.

¶10

Accordingly, this application for anticipatory bail is,

¶11

hereby, rejected.

¶12

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised. If he does so, his application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by rejection of present application for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶14

Vats/-c

¶15

U T

Ravi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipeen Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Manindra Singh @ Manindra Nath Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Rajesh Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Veena Devi and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Shankar Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Madho Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar