Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 562 (PAT)

Raju Chaudhary v. State of Bihar

2005-06-27

body2005
ORDER Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, coun-sel for the petitioner and Mr. Mehta, the A.P.P. representing the State. 2. The petitioner Raju Chaudhary is one of the accused in a case under Section 364A of the Penal Code in which two persons were kidnapped for demand of ransom. In connection with this case he is in jail from 1.6.2004. 3. He earlier came to this court seeking bail in the case in Cr. Misc. No. 20853 of 2004. That petition was heard along with Cr. Misc. Nos. 32103 and 33491 of 2004 filed at the instance of two other accused in the case, namely, Raju Mahto and Vikil Yadav. All the three bail petitions were dismissed by a speaking order, dated 3.12.2004 taking note of the materials in the case diary in respect of each of the three accused. 4. The petitioner Raju Chaudhary has come to this court for bail for the second time and the prayer is renewed primarily on the ground that after his prayer for bail was rejected, another accused in the case Mantu Chaudhary was granted bail by another bench of this court on 30.12.2004 in Cr. Misc. No. 35398 of 2004. It is pointed out that in the earlier order, dated 3.12.2004 passed by me there is a reference to Mantu Chaudhary and from the other it would appear that in the case diary materials against both Raju Chaudhary and Mantu Chaudhary were quite similar. 5. Mr. Mishra appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that since Mantu Chaudhary was granted bail, there was hardly any justification for denying the same privilege to the present petitioner, more so since he was in jail for over a year. 6. I have carefully gone through the previous order, dated 3.12.2004 passed by me in the case of the present petitioner Raju Chaudhary and I have also carefully perused the order, dated 20.12.2004 by which Mantu Chaudhary was granted bail. 6. I have carefully gone through the previous order, dated 3.12.2004 passed by me in the case of the present petitioner Raju Chaudhary and I have also carefully perused the order, dated 20.12.2004 by which Mantu Chaudhary was granted bail. I find that in the order granting bail to Mantu Chaudhary there is no reference to the fact that only a few days ago the prayer for bail on behalf of Raju Chaudhary was rejected by another bench of the court and hence, it is clear that the Hon'ble Judge granting bail to Mantu Chaudhary was unaware of the fact that the prayer for bail of another accused against whom there are similar materials was rejected by the court. 7. I have had the occasion to make the observation that in matters of bail the principle of judicial consistency is not a one way street. Mostly, reliance is placed on orders by which bail was granted to some other accused in the case but it is very seldom, if ever, that the court is informed that the prayer for bail of another accused was rejected by another bench of the court. If a petitioner wishes to place reliance on the order granting bail to some other accused, it must be shown that the court that granted bail was made &ware of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the fact that another accused in the case was denied bail by some other bench of the court. That is one aspect of the matter. 8. The other important aspect is that Mr. Mehta learned State counsel has once again carefully gone through the entire case diary (which was called for in a connected matter being Cr. Misc. No. 11909 of 2005). Mr. Mehta submitted that the narration of the facts in the order, dated 3.12.2004 was fully in accord with the materials in the case diary but from the bail order of Mantu Choudhary it appears that the materials in the case diary were not placed before the court quite correctly. In the order granting bail to Mantu Chaudhary it is observed as follows: "Paragraph 103 of the case diary would reveal that the allegedly kidnapped persons were not recovered on the statement of the said co-accused stated to have been named by the petitioner." 9. Mr. Mehta submitted that the fact was just the opposite. In the order granting bail to Mantu Chaudhary it is observed as follows: "Paragraph 103 of the case diary would reveal that the allegedly kidnapped persons were not recovered on the statement of the said co-accused stated to have been named by the petitioner." 9. Mr. Mehta submitted that the fact was just the opposite. Para 93 of the case diary contains the confessional statement of Mantu Chaudhary and para 94 records the recovery of the wrist watch of one of the victim from him. Para 95 contains the confessional statement of the present petitioner Raju Chaudhary. Para 103 records the recovery of the two victims from the house of Lalmuni Chaudhary. He further stated that in the last three lines of para 103 of the case diary it is clearly stated that the recovery of the two victims was made on the basis of the confessional statements of Mantu Chaudhary and Raju Chaudhary. Further, Mantu Chaudhary was also named as one of the accused by both the victims in their respective statements before the police. The other victim Arvind Pandey in his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. also named Mantu Chaudhary as one of the accused. 10. In these facts and circumstances I am unable to grant bail to the petitioner simply on the ground that Mantu Chaudhary was released on bail. This bail petition is dismissed. 11. The office is directed to bring this order and the order, dated 3.12.2004