The Patna High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 439(2) CrPC seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail bonds. The court found no reason to cancel the bonds where the petitioner assigned no reasons beyond criminal antecedents and no evidence of misuse was presented. The application is dismissed.
Application to cancel bail bonds 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.62436 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2018 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
SURYA PRAKASH DAS Son of Ved Prakash Das Resident of Village - Hariharpur, P.S.- Baniyapur, Distt - Saran.
... ... Petitioners.
Versus
... ... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Jha, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-10-2019 Heard.
This application, under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to cancel the bail bonds of the opposite party nos.2 to 10, as furnished
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62436 of 2019(2) dt.17-10-2019 2/2
by them in the light of the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, in A.B.P. No.332 of 2019, allowing the prayer of the opposite party nos.2 to 10 to grant them the privilge of pre-arrest bail in connection with Baniyapur P.S. Case No.471 of 2018 registered under Sections 436, 457, 380 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
No reason has been assigned by the learned counsel for the petitioner to cancel the bail bonds of the opposite party nos.2 to 10 except that they have criminal antecedents. Moreover, nowhere, in this application it has been mentioned that the opposite party nos.2 to 10 have misused the privilege of pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, I find no reason to cancel the bail bonds of the opposite party nos.2 to 10, as furnished by them in the light of the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, in A.B.P. No.332 of 2019.
In the result, this application stands dismissed.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)
P.S./-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail bonds of the accused having criminal antecedents should be cancelled in the absence of any evidence of misuse of bail.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Surya Prakash Das and others
The State of Bihar
Shyam Bihari Das and others
Rajendra Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
