The Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner as he was arrested under Sections 379/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code.: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.376920 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 138 Year 2011 Thana PARASBIGHA District Jehanabad 1. Devendra Sharma @ Bithal Sharma @ Bithalaged about 55 years S o Jogeshwar Sharma Rajiv Kumaraged about 32 years S o Devendra Sharma @ Bithal Sharma @ Bithal Both resident of Village Gonwan P.S. Sakurabad District Jehanabad The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Mr. Haridayal Kumar Advocate Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal APP 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 Prosecutorfor 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.376920 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 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.376920 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

Summary: This is in connection with Parasbigha PS Case No. 138 of 2011 dated 07.12.2011, the petitioner was held behind bars under Section 379, Indian penal code, “Punishment for theft”, section 511, “Punishment for attempting to commit offenses punishable with imprisonment for life or another imprisonment”, and 34 IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 2nd of August 2021 in the case of Devendra Sharma @ Bithal Sharma @ Bithal and others versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.37695 of 2020, Mr. Haridayal Kumar Represented as the advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Veena Kumari represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner along with the son of another petitioner was accused of trying to steal the CD pumping set machine which belonged to the informant, when they were noticed they proceeded to run away and when they have chased the other son of petitioner no.1 was apprehended while as the petitioner no.1 and no.2 and the others managed to escape as the informant approached the police regarding the same, the family of the one apprehended was forcibly released from the custody. The counsel representing the petitioners held that the petitioners are the neighbors of the informant and because of some rivalry, the petitioners have been falsely implicated. He further submitted that according to the final form given by the authorities the petitioners were not sent for trial and the court below differing from the same, had taken cognizance against them, unfortunately, the petitioner was unaware of this process and that’s the reason they had not earlier moved for anticipatory bail and no summons was issued to them as well and that’s why they failed to appear before the court. The Additional Public Prosecutor held that the petitioners along with his team were clearly trying to steal the CD pumping set belonging to the informant and also tried to escape the scene and when one was caught. It was conceded that the cognizance regarding the same was taken by the Court on 06.12.2012 which is within one year from when the incident took place, the other son being charge-sheeted by the police, it is unrealistic that the petitioners no. 1 and 2, being the father and full brother of co-accused was unaware of the same.  The APP further stated, “this 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.”