Jharkhand High Court
Dina Nath Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 6 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.8042 of 2019
------
Dina Nath Singh .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
.... .... ....Opposite Party
With
A.B.A. No.8050 of 2019
Dina Nath Singh .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
.... .... ....Opposite Party
With
A.B.A. No.8052 of 2019
Dina Nath Singh .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
.... .... ....Opposite Party
With
A.B.A. No.8088 of 2019
Dina Nath Singh .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
.... .... ....Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Anil Kr. Singh(1), Adv.
For the State : Mr. T.N. Verma, Adv.
: Ms. Vandana Bharti, Adv.
: Mr. Gouri S. Prasad, Adv.
: Ms. Priya Shrestha, Adv.
------
Order No.10 Dated- 06.04.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep Ram Vs.
State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2019 SCC Online (825) para 31.4 of
which read as under:-
In case where an accused has already been granted bail, the
investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may
not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on
such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to
arrest the accused from the court which had granted the bail.
Submits that admittedly in these cases consequent upon the anticipatory
bail being granted to the petitioners, they have surrendered before the trial court
and they have been released on bail and till today no prayer has been made by the
Investigating Agency before the trial court for arresting any of the accused, hence,
it is submitted that there is no apprehension of the petitioner of being arrested in
connection with non-bailable offences till today. It is further submitted by Mr.
Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner that in A.B.A. No.8042 of 2019
that vide 25.09.2019 in Vigilance Case No.62 of 2017, learned Special Judge
Vigilance, Chaibasa has directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest without
issuing any notice to the petitioner even though there was a change of the court,
about which the petitioner was not aware.
Under such circumstances, as there is no material in the record to suggest
that there is any apprehension of the petitioner of being arrested in connection
with non-bailable offences till today, accordingly, these anticipatory bail
applications are disposed of as not maintainable.
So far the order dated 25.09.2019 passed in Vigilance Case No.62 of 2017 of
the Court of Special Judge, Chaibasa is concerned, the parties are at liberty to
approach the appropriate forum with proper application.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pappu/
