Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.6792 of 2010 ====================================================== Bhavesh Kumar Sahu, son of Suarya Bali Sahu, resident of Village Sahu Parbatta, Police Station Sahu Parbatta, District Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State off Bihar 2. Kanhaiya Mandal, son of Vilas Mandal, resident of Village Choti Parbatta, Police Station Sahu Parbatta, District Bhagalpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Uma Kant Prasad, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, Addl. P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 8 20-06-2012 Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with a prayer for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no.2 by an order dated 21.12.2009 passed in B.P. No. 386 of 2009 by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Naugachia( District Bhagalpur). 3. It appears that the petitioner lodged Ismailpur P.S. Case No. 75 of 2009 dated 17.10.2009 for offences under [STATUTE] . Opposite party no.2 is an accused in the aforesaid criminal prosecution and certain allegations have been levelled against him in the F.I.R. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6792 of 2010 (8) dt.20-06-2012 2 / 6 2 vide Annexure-1 lodged by the petitioner. It further appears that during the course of investigation, opposite party no.2 was apprehended by the police and was remanded to judicial custody. His prayer for bail was rejected by learned Judicial Magistrate, whereafter he preferred the aforesaid B.P. No. 386 of 2009 before the learned Sessions court, which was finally heard and decided by the impugned order dated 21.12.2009 granting bail to opposite party no.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the manner in which bail has been granted to opposite party no.2 by learned Sessions court is arbitrary, and further merit of the case has not been properly considered, therefore, according to him, bail granted to opposite party no.2 is fit to be cancelled by this Court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Subodh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.( AIR 2010 SC 802). It is further contended that when opposite party no. 2 filed the aforesaid bail application, then by an order dated 10.12.2009, case diary and supervision note were called for, and only after two adjournments on 14.12.2009 and 18.12.2009 the matter was finally heard on 21.12.2009 and by that order prayer for bail made on behalf of opposite party no.2 was allowed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Sessions Judge has acted in haste in granting bail to opposite party no.2 and, therefore, also it is liable to be cancelled by this Court. 5. Learned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 have supported the impugned order and have opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6792 of 2010 (8) dt.20-06-2012 3 / 6 3 According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, pursuant to the order dated 10.12.2009, case diary and supervision note were received in the court and were subsequently received by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on 16.12.2009 for perusal, whereafter the matter was finally heard and decided by an order dated 21.12.2009. It is contended by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that bail was granted to opposite party no.2 as far back as on 21.12.2009 and more than two and half years have elapsed since then, but there is no allegation of either misuse of privilege of bail or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is also contended that there is no cogent and overwhelming circumstances, which may necessitate cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no.2. In support of his contention he has placed his reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagirath Singh Vs. The State of Gujarat (1984 BBCJ 4(SC). 6. It appears that a Bench of this Court by an order dated 10.2.2012 directed the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur to conduct an enquiry into the matter as to whether the case diary was validly/ officially received by the court, while hearing the matter on 21.12.2009. It also appears that the enquiry report of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur was not received by this Court within the time fixed. Therefore, by an order dated 5.4.2012, the learned District and sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, was directed to furnish an explanation as to why the previous order dated 10.2.2012 was not complied with within the timeframe. In compliance of the order dated 10.2.2012 read with the order dated 5.4.2012, learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur has submitted his explanation as also the enquiry Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6792 of 2010 (8) dt.20-06-2012 4 / 6 4 report, kept at Flag ‘A’ of the record. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur has explained that as a matter of fact, order dated 10.2.2012 and subsequent order dated 28.2.2012 passed by this Court were not communicated and received by him within the time prescribed and, therefore, enquiry could not be conducted. According to him, the moment he received the order dated 5.4.2012, he conducted an enquiry and examined the records of Bail Petition No. 386 of 2009, which was filed by opposite party no.2 for the purpose of grant of bail to him in the aforesaid criminal prosecution. Learned District and Sessions Judge has expressed his regret for inconvenience caused to this Court for non-submission of his enquiry report within the time fixed d

Applicable IPC Section: 341

Statute Text:
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully restraining any person. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.