Disposed

Roshan Sah v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC27 Feb 2018CR. MISC./12045/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Oral order granting directions to the applicant to appear within four weeks to consider bail. Court held that a person on bail shall not be denied privilege unless there is allegation of misuse, noting a prior precedent where a similar question of anticipatory bail was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to appear before the court below within four weeks for consideration of bail.

Roshan Sah Vs The State Of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12045 of 2018 (2) dt.27-02-2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12045 of 2018

¶4

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -256 Year- 2016 Thana -DHURAIYA District- BANKA

¶5

====================================================== Roshan Sah, son of late Thakur Sah, resident of Village Laxmikitta, P.S., Dhoraiya, District Banka

¶6

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Nandad Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Iftekhar Mahmood ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 27-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶11

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in Dhoraiya P.S. Case No.256 of 2016 instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added.

¶12

The petitioner has moved earlier and he was granted bail but after addition of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code the bail of the petitioner was cancelled. The court below has rejected the bail of the petitioner on the ground that once he has already appeared question of anticipatory bail does not arise.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahendra Prasad

¶14

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12045 of 2018 (2) dt.27-02-2018

¶15

¶16

Singh v. The State of Bihar, reported in 2004(3) PLJR 491 and further he submits that petitioner has never misused the privilege of bail and this Court has held once the petitioner has already been granted bail the question of any anticipatory bail does not arise.

¶17

In such view of the matter, this Court directs the petitioner to appear before the court below within a period of four weeks and court below will consider the bail of the petitioner in accordance with law keeping in view the well established principle that a person who is already on bail shall not be denied such privilege unless there is allegation of misuse.

¶18

With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is disposed of.

¶19

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶20

Vinay/-

¶21

U T

Roshan Sah v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Sah 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Bhuvneshwar Sahay Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Laxman Das and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Baban Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Om Prakash Sahni @ Om Prakash @ Dahaur Sahni Vs The State Of Bihar

Santosh Manjhi and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Das Thakur Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.