Parvati Devi v. The State Of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 307, 353
- Explosive Substance Act ss. 4, 5
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
Birendra Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Babuchand Singh, R/o Village Ugar Bigha, P.S. Sasaram (M), District Rohtas. The State Of Bihar Versus ………Petitioner ……….Opposite party ----------------- Criminal Miscellaneous No.43592 of 2011 Ajay Kumar Singh, Son of Baijnath Singh, R/o Village Kanchanpur, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas. The State Of Bihar Versus ………Petitioner ---------------- ……….Opposite party 02/- 02/01/2012 Since all these applications arising out of one case are taken up together and being disposed of by this Composite order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. All the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, are named accused in this case. Submission is that under almost similarly situated circumstance, co-accused Arvind Kumar Singh has already been granted the privilege by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 2 14/12/2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42428 of 2011. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of their arrest/surrender before the court below within four weeks, let the above named petitioners be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram, in connection with Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No. 1064 of 2011, subject to condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with additional condition to petitioners, namely, Birendra Kumar Singh (Cr. Misc. No. 42754/2011) and Ajay Kumar Singh (Cr. Misc. No. 43592/2011) to remain physically present before the court below on each and every date at least for two years or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier and in case of failure on two consecutive dates without giving any reasonable explanation, the liberty granted shall be deemed to be cancelled. Praveen/- ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.