The State Of Bihar Through Superintendent Of Police Bhojpur vs. Shiva Yadav
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Before:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
Listed On:
16 Sept 2014
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
| IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA<br>Criminal Miscellaneous No.53104 of 2013 |
|---|
| Arising Out of PS.Case No. -182 Year- 2009 Thana –PARBATTA(Maraiya) District- KHAGARIA |
| ======================================================<br>The State of Bihar through Superintendent of Police, Khagaria |
| <br>Petitioner/s<br>Versus |
| Shiva Yadav S/O Late Yogi Yadav @ Bhogi Yadav R/V - Baisa, P.S.<br>Parbatta ( Mareiya ), District - Khagaria |
| Opposite Party/s |
| ======================================================<br>Appearance :<br>For the Petitioner/s<br>:<br>Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP<br>For the Opposite Party/s<br>:<br>Mr. |
| ======================================================<br>CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR |
SINGH ORAL ORDER
03/ 16-09-2014 The present application has been filed for cancellation of bail of opposite party granted by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 30.04.2010 vide Cr. Misc. No. 15749 of 2010 in connection with Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 182 of 2009 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 224, 225, 323, 307, 379, 333 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the pre-conditions for release on bail was that the opposite party will file affidavit to the effect that he is not accused in any other case and if he is involved in any case he shall not be released on bail, but contrary to that the opposite party was released on bail, though the opposite party is accused in 13 cases as gets reflected from Annexure-3, which are as follows:-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 105 of
2008 registered under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 97 of 2001 registered under Sections 302, 216, 504/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act.
-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 58 of 2005 registered under Sections 395 of the IPC.
-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 86 of 1998 registered under Sections 354 of the IPC and 3/4 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 102 of 1998 registered under Sections 324, 307/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act.
-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 104 of 1998 registered under Sections 399, 402, 307 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act.
-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 105 of 2005 registered under Sections 395 & 397 of the IPC.
-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 65 of
2006 registered under Sections 384 & 386 of the IPC.
-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 152 of 2006 registered under Sections 399/402 of the IPC and 25(1-B)a, 26 & 35 of the Arms Act.
-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 185 of 2006 registered under Section 384 of the IPC.
-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 83 of 2007 registered under Section 395 of the IPC.
-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 172 of 2009 registered under Sections 448, 427 and 506/34 of the IPC.
-
- Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 207 of 2011 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 341, 323, 354 & 384 of the IPC.
Apart from the aforesaid cases the opposite
party is main assailant in Gogri P.S. Case No. 94 of 2013 registered under Sections 364, 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.
Notices were issued to opposite party in the present cancellation application vide order dated 08.01.2014. It appears from the office report dated 11.09.2014 that notices have been validly served to opposite party, but in spite of valid service of notice opposite party chose not to appear. Today also none is appearing on behalf of opposite party.
Considering the fact that opposite party was granted bail in Parbatta (Maraiya) P.S. Case No. 182 of 2009 on 30.04.2010 vide Cr. Misc. No. 15749 of 2010 with clear stipulation that he will not be released if he is accused in any other case, but in spite of having involved in several cases he was being released. Moreover, after the release he has misused the privilege of bail by committing serious offence.
In the circumstances, the bail granted to opposite party vide order dated 30.04.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15749 of 2010 is hereby cancelled. The learned court below is directed to cancel the bail bonds of opposite party and take all steps to get opposite party arrested.
Accordingly, this application is allowed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
DKS/-
U T