Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1193 (PAT)

Ramesh Paswan v. State Of Bihar

2007-07-24

NAVIN SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite party no. 2. 2. The petitioner prays for cancellation of the bail granted to Oppostie party no. 2 in Sandesh P.S. Case No. 113 of 2006 registered under Sections 323, 353, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Penal Code and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as granted by order dated 1.2.2007 by the court of Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah. 3. The ground urged is that in tne bail application the Opposite party no. 2 made specific averments in paragraph 11 that he has no criminal history, whereas the fact is that he was already on bail in Sandesh P.S. Case no. 75 of 2000 having been enlarged on bail on 17.2.2004 much prior to the filing of the application for bail presently under consideration. This was an incorrect statement which also persuaded the grant of bail. 4. Learned counsel for Opposite party no. 2 submits that he has not been chargesheeted in Sandesh P.S. Case No. 75 of 2000 and, therefore, the omission was at best an inadvertence. 5. This Court finds from the order of the court below at paragraph 4 that having called for the case diary, the matter came to be decided without the case diary, when bail came to be granted abruptly by paragraph 5 of the order. The order does not disclose the consideration of materials on which the Court was satisfied to grant bail. 6. On both counts whether it be the absence of the case diary or the order granting bail with no reasons, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned order dated 1.2.2007. 7. The Opposite party no. 2, who is represented by his counsel Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra and in whose presence the order is being passed is directed to undertake to appear before the court below within a period of two weeks from today when the court below shall fix a fresh date for hearing in presence of the parties. It is made clear that on the date that the Opposite party no. Gopal Govind Mishra and in whose presence the order is being passed is directed to undertake to appear before the court below within a period of two weeks from today when the court below shall fix a fresh date for hearing in presence of the parties. It is made clear that on the date that the Opposite party no. 2 appears before the court below, he shall not be taken into custody, but, his presence shall be necessary when the bail application shall be heard afresh and finally disposed off on the basis of the materials that may be available in the case diary within a maximum period of one month from the date of such first date of hearing, whereafter the matter shall proceed in accordance with law. Should the Opposite party absent himself from personal appearance as presently directed, the Court below shall be at liberty to proceed appropriately against him in view of the order dated 1.2.2007 having been set aside. 8. The application stands disposed with the aforesaid directions.