Devendra Sharma @ Bithal Sharma @ ... vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3889 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37695 of 2020
        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2011 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad
     ======================================================

1. Devendra Sharma @ Bithal Sharma @ Bithal (M), aged about 55 years, S/o Jogeshwar Sharma

2. Rajiv Kumar (M), aged about 32 years, S/o Devendra Sharma @ Bithal Sharma @ Bithal

Both resident of Village-Gonwan, P.S.-Sakurabad, District-Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Haridayal Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Haridayal Kumar, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Parasbigha PS Case No. 138 of 2011 dated 07.12.2011,

instituted under Sections 379/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they

along with another son of petitioner no. 1 had tried to steal the

CD pumping set machine of the informant and when they were

seen, they began to run away and on chase the other son of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37695 of 2020 dt.02-08-2021

petitioner no. 1 namely, Guddu Kumar was apprehended

whereas the petitioner no. 1 and his son, petitioner no. 2

managed to run away, and when the informant was going to the

police station it is alleged that the family members of Guddu

Kumar forcibly got him released.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

they are neighbours of the informant and due to rivalry they

have been falsely implicated. Learned counsel submitted that

final form has been submitted by the police and the petitioners

were not sent up for trial, but the Court below differing from the

same, had taken cognizance against them also. It was submitted

that they were unaware of such development and thus earlier

had not moved for anticipatory bail as no summons were ever

issued to them and thus could not appear before the Court

below.

6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners along

with another son of petitioner no. 1 were trying to steal the CD

pumping set of the informant and upon being seen, tried to run

away, but another son of petitioner no. 1 was caught. It was

submitted that cognizance in the matter has been taken by the

Court on 06.12.2012 i.e., within one year of the occurrence and

that another son of petitioner no. 1, namely, Guddu Kumar Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37695 of 2020 dt.02-08-2021

having been chargesheeted even by the police, it is unbelievable

that the petitioners no. 1 and 2, being the father and full brother

of co-accused Guddu Kumar, were not aware that cognizance

had been taken against them also on 06.12.2012 and even then,

for the first time sought anticipatory bail only in the year 2020,

clearly disentitles them for any indulgence as they were evading

to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court for eight years after

cognizance having been taken and only when non-bailable

warrants of arrest have been issued against them on 03.01.2019,

the petitioners sought anticipatory bail in the year 2020, which

proved lack of bona fide.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T