This Court rejected the petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail, holding that the earlier petition was rejected on merits two years prior without valid ground for reconsideration.
Petition for anticipatory bail is rejected.
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.4900 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2019 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran
======================================================
SONU KUMAR S/o of Keshaw Kunwar Resident of Mohalla - Bara Tola, Basatpur, P.S. - Mufassil, Town and District - East Champaran at Motihari.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Murari Narain Chaudhary For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.J.N. Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 11-01-2023
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mufassil (Motihari) P.S. Case No. 87 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner was rejected, vide order dated 20.11.2019 in Cr. Misc No. 59155 of 2019. The petitioner is husband of the deceased. As per allegation, the deceased was done to death within one year of her marriage in her matrimonial house.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4900 of 2022(6) dt.11-01-2023 2/2
the leave of the petitioner was not considered on the earlier occasion by the co-ordinate Bench, but as a matter of fact, he has got papers from his Department showing that on the day of occurrence, he was on leave.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer for bail. They have submitted that on earlier occasion, the plea taken by the petitioner was considered and his anticipatory bail petition was rejected.
The anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner was rejected by this Court in the year 2019 and the present petition has been filed after two years, despite the fact that his anticipatory bail petition was rejected earlier. He did not surrender before the court below for two years. I do not find any reason for reconsideration of the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is rejected.
Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
kundan/-Nirmal U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail, which was previously rejected, should be reconsidered.
Sonu Kumar
The State of Bihar
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
