Patna High Court
Duggi Ram @ Satandeo vs The State Of Bihar on 1 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3459 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2020 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Duggi Ram @ Satandeo, S/O Sakaldhari Ram.
2. Ranjit @ Ranjit Ram, S/O Duggi Ram @ Satandeo.
3. Suraj Kumar S/O Ramayan Ram.
All resident of Village- Kamalpipra Ps Paharpur, District-East
Champaran.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
. . ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-12-2022
In this case, the petitioners are seeking anticipatory
bail in connection with Paharpur P.S. Case No.62 of 2020
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148,
149, 341, 323, 324, 379, 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
The present F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of
written information of the informant - Arun Ram alleging inter
alia that on 21.02.2000 at about 8:00 A.M. the petitioners
forming unlawful assembly came and started destroying the hut
of the informant, which has been built over the land purchased
by the father of the informant, and they also assaulted the father
of the informant. Ranjit Ram is said to have inflicted farsa blow
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3459 of 2021 dt.01-12-2022
on the head of the father of the informant. Duggi Ram is said to
have pressed the neck of the father of the informant and other
accused persons also assaulted him. It is also alleged that when
the informant tried to save his father, he was assaulted by
Ramayan Ram, who inflicted farsa blow which resulted in
serious injuries in the hand of the informant. Other family
members of the informant were also assaulted by the accused
persons including these petitioners. It is further alleged that the
petitioners entered into the house of the informant and taken
away a box containing ornaments and other articles worth
Rs.80,000/- On account of injuries, the father of the informant
became unconscious and therefore, he was taken to the hospital
but he succumbed to death.
In this case, learned counsel for the informant has
submitted that this bail application is not maintainable in view of
the fact that process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been
issued against the petitioners.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the
point of maintainability of this bail application.
For deciding this issue, a recent decision of this
Court rendered in the case of Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar
Yadav vs. State of Bihar (Criminal Miscellaneous No.38750 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3459 of 2021 dt.01-12-2022
2021) decided on 04.07. 2022 is important. It will be useful to
quote relevant portion of this decision, which read as under:-
"After hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, the
Court comes to a considered conclusion that
anticipatory bail application is maintainable
even after issuance of process under Section 82
of the Cr.P.C further the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (Supra)
has very clearly laid that anticipatory bail
application is maintainable even after filing of
charge-sheet or till the person is not arrested,
thereafter another Constitution Bench judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs State (NCT of
Delhi) and Another (supra) had also placed
reliance on the Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (Supra).
Further from the scheme of Cr.P.C. it prima-facie
appears that Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is resorted
to only when an accused is trying to flee from
justice and Section 83 Cr.P.C. is an additional
provision to create more pressure on the accused
to surrender since the provision provides for
attachment of property but then the said
attachment of property is not final and it is
subject to Sections 84, 85 and 86 of the Cr.P.C.,
as aforesaid, further if on objection the
attachment order is recalled then definitely it will
be presumed that the petitioner no longer is an
absconder because abscondence is a
precondition for issuance of an order under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3459 of 2021 dt.01-12-2022
Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. thus prima-facie it
appears that Sections 82 and 83 are provisions
which are provisional in nature and as such a
valuable right like personal liberty as enshrined
in Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot
be taken away based on a transient provision.
The Court is also in agreement with the
submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that even Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
nowhere bars anticipatory bail application on
the ground of issuance of process under Section
82 Cr.P.C. thus the Court holds that anticipatory
bail application is maintainable even after
issuance of process under Section 82 of the
Cr.P.C. though the accused on merits may not be
entitled to seek relief based on his conduct
leading to issuance of process under Section 82
but then definitely maintainability of an
anticipatory bail application after issuance of
process under Section 82 is definitely not
barred."
In view of aforesaid, this Court holds that this
anticipatory bail application is maintainable.
Considered the submissions of the parties on merit
of the case and also perused the material available on record.
This is a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. As the allegations against the petitioners are specific and
serious in nature, they do not deserve anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3459 of 2021 dt.01-12-2022
In such view of the matter, this anticipatory bail
application is held maintainable but is dismissed on merits.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A.
Uploading Date 22.12.2022
Transmission Date
