Dilip Thakur vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 5410 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54655 of 2023
            Arising Out of PS. Case No.-326 Year-2022 Thana- PUPRI District- Sitamarhi
     ======================================================

DILIP THAKUR SON OF LATE SHIV SHANKAR THAKUR R/O- JHAJHIHAT, P.S. - PUPRI, DISTT. - SITAMARHI ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. DEEPAN THAKUR SON OF LATE DHIDHAR THAKUR @ RAJESHWAR THAKUR R/O - JHAJHIHAT MAHARANI ASTHAN NAGAR PANCHAYAT, WARD NO. 25, P.S. - PUPRI, DISTT. - SITAMARHI ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ansul, Advocate
                                       Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
     For the State            :        Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate
     For the O.P. No. 2       :        Mr. Dinesh Jha, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-10-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for

the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing

of the order dated 14.06.2023 passed in Cr. Revision No. 51 of 2023

arising out of Pupri P.S. Case No. 326 of 2022 whereby the learned

Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi rejected the petition filed by the petitioner

for setting aside the cancellation of provisional bail of the petitioner

as well as the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi whereby the learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi cancelled the

provisional bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 09.11.2022. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54655 of 2023 dt.18-10-2023

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of

the Court to the revisional order passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Sitamarhi and submits that the learned Sessions Judge, while

rejecting the petition of the petitioner which was filed against the

order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at

Sitamarhi dated 06.01.2023 whereby his provisional bail was

cancelled, held that the order cancelling the provisional bail of the

petitioner by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at

Sitamarhi was an interlocutory order, as such, revision was not

maintainable. It is submitted that while holding that the revision

application was not maintainable but still held that the order dated

06.01.2023 of cancellation of bail and issuance of NBW against the

petitioner and another accused is legal, correct and need no

interference on the point of bail order or its cancellation revision is

not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that, on

the one hand, the learned Sessions Judge held that the revision was

not maintainable but then also records that the order passed by the

learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi

cancelling the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner was legal, this

appears to be dichotomic.

5. Learned counsel next submits that the dispute in the

present case between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54655 of 2023 dt.18-10-2023

purely civil in nature to which a criminal colour has been given. It is

further submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Pupri at Sitamarhi was pleased to grant the provisional bail to the

petitioner by order dated 09.11.2022 solely for the reason that the

dispute was purely civil though the order granting provisional bail

did not record reason but then it was the discretion of the learned trial

court to grant or not to grant bail or to grant provisional bail. It is

next submitted that petitioner in compliance of the order granting

provisional bail was appearing on each and every date fixed in the

case. It is submitted that the petitioner on 07.12.2022 had appeared

before the learned trial court and had sought time on which the Court

was pleased to grant thirty days time to the petitioner with a direction

that after thirty days the petitioner shall remain present in the Court,

but then there was no condition imposed that if petitioner will not

appear on the 30th day his provisional bail shall be cancelled.

6. Learned counsel submits that thirty days' period was

coming to an end as per calculation of the petitioner on 08.01.2023

but as per the case of the prosecution the said thirty days' period was

coming to an end on 06.01.2023. It is next submitted that the

calculation of the prosecution was correct but then it was not the

intention of the petitioner not to appear before the Court as the

petitioner on 09.01.2023 had appeared. It is next submitted that

petitioner had no intention of misusing the privilege of grant of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54655 of 2023 dt.18-10-2023

provisional bail to him. It is just that the calculation of the date as per

the petitioner was not correct which led to cancellation of his

provisional bail. It is further submitted that petitioner was not aware

that his provisional bail bonds have been cancelled as there was no

condition imposed in the order dated 07.12.2012 as recorded

hereinabove and thus on 09.01.2023 he through his Advocate got an

application filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and then he came to know

that his provisional bail has already been cancelled.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2

vehemently opposes the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and submits that the present application is not maintainable

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that petitioner

has remedy of surrendering before the learned trial court and seek

regular bail.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner rebuts the submission

of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and submits that

right to life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India is a fundamental right, it is next submitted that

had it been the case of the prosecution that petitioner was misusing

the privilege of provisional bail granted then perhaps what has been

submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 could

have been appreciated but here is a case where the dispute is purely

civil and the petitioner was appearing on each date fixed in the case Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54655 of 2023 dt.18-10-2023

in compliance of the order of the learned trial court, it is just that the

petitioner miscalculated the date on which he had to appear in terms

of the order dated 07.12.2022 which led to cancellation of his

provisional bail, which cannot be countenanced.

9. Considering the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, the order 14.06.2023 passed in Cr.

Revision No. 51 of 2023 as well as order dated 06.01.2023 passed by

the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi in

connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 326 of 2022 cancelling the

provisional bail of the petitioner are hereby quashed.

10. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

AFR/NAFR                N.A.
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          19.10.2023
Transmission Date       19.10.2023