High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Chhote Singh @ Dilip Singh &Amp; … vs State Of Bihar on 22 September, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Chhote Singh @ Dilip Singh &Amp; … vs State Of Bihar on 22 September, 2010
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             Cr.Misc. No.26934 of 2010

1.

CHHOTE SINGH @ DILIP SINGH, Son of Late Suresh Singh, Resident of Village Amat, P.S.
Karai Parsurai, District Nalanda. At present Dakbunglow Road, Harnaut, P.S. Harnaut, District
Nalanda.

2. INDRA DEVI, Wife of Devendra Singh

3. DEVENDRA SINGH, Son of Ramdil Singh
Both Resident of Village Kalyan Bigha, P.S. Harnaut, District Nalanda

4. SUKMANTI DEVI, Wife of Sanjay Kumar, Resident of Chainpur, P.S. Chandi (Wena), District
Nalanda

5. RUPAM KUMARI, Daughter of Anuj Singh, Resident of Village Barah, P.S. Harnaut, District
Nalanda

6. AJAY SINGH, Son of Devendra Singh, Resident of Village Kalyan Bigha, P.S. Harnaut,
District Nalanda

7. BIBHA DEVI, Wife of Vinjay Singh, Resident of Kalyan Bigha, P.S. Harnaut, District
Nalanda.

……….Petitioners

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR
…….Opposite Party

02/- 22.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the seven petitioners and

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to

make necessary correction in para 8 of this petition. Permission is

granted.

Only petitioner no. 1 and 6 are named accused in this

case, but during investigation names of remaining petitioners

emerged. As submitted all the petitioners were enjoying privilege

of bail granted by police, who also did not submit charge-sheet for

the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but only

because cognizance has been taken for a graver offence. The

privilege already granted to the petitioners cannot be snatched

unless there is any material to show that they have misuse the
2

privilege. This is the consistent view of this Court taken in several

decisions viz. in a case of Mahendra Prasad Singh Vs. The State of

Bihar reported in 2004 (3) PLJR 491.

In view of the above, the prayer for anticipatory bail is

not maintainable, accordingly disposed of.

Petitioners are directed to appear before the court

below, who shall consider their prayer for regular bail in the light

of the observations made above and the decisions of this Court.

( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)
Praveen/-