Raj Ballav Prasad @ Raj Ballav … vs The State Of Bihar on 24 November, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.52656 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -15 Year- 2016 Thana -M AHILA P.S. District- NALANDA
(BIHARSHARIFF)

Raj Ballav Prasad @ Raj Ballav Yadav @ Raj Ballav Prasad Yadav, Son of
Late Jehal Yadav, Resident of Village- Pathara English, P.S. Muffasil,
District- Nawada.

…. …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar.

…. …. Opposite Party

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Gopal Bohra, Mr. Ram Pravesh
Kumar, Advocates, Mr.Y.C.Verma,
Sr.Advocate and Ms. Aaruni Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Shyameshwar Dayal, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
CAV ORDER

4 24-11-2017 This application has been filed for grant of bail to the

petitioner, who is accused in Nalanda Mahila P.S.case No. 15 of

2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366A,

370, 370A, 376, 212, 109, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 4, 5 6 of I.T.P. Act.

Before proceeding further, certain facts are essential for

consideration of this case : Earlier petitioner has been granted bail

by this Court in Cr.Misc.No. 35951 of 2016, vide order dated

30.9.2016 and it appears that against the said order the State has

moved the Hon’ble Apex Court in Cr.Appeal No. 1141 of 2016

and the Hon’ble Apex Court after hearing the parties a detailed
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.52656 of 2017 (4) dt.24-11-2017

2/6

order has been passed allowing the appeal and setting aside the of

this Court and further directed that if respondent (petitioner here)

has already been released, he shall surrender and/or taken into

custody forthwith and in case, he is still in jail custody, he will

continue in jail as consequence of the judgment.

The present application has been filed on behalf of

petitioner stating that earlier his bail bond was cancelled by

Hon’ble Apex Court as some material witnesses were to be

examined. However, now the evidence has already been

concluded and statements of accused persons were recorded and

thereafter the defence has examined 14 witnesses within a period

of one month. Argument of prosecution was concluded and in

course of argument of defence, the defence has challenged the

evidence of P.W.14 and electronic evidence, as Nodal Officers of

the concerned Company has not been examined, thereafter

prosecution has filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on

20.6.2017 to summon the Nodal Officers of the concerned

Company, which was finally rejected by learned trial court vide

order dated 29.8.2017, against which the State has preferred

Cr.Rev.No. 975 of 2017 before this Court, in which notice was

issued and further proceeding before the trial court was stayed

vide order dated 10.10.2017. Hence, there is no chance of disposal
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.52656 of 2017 (4) dt.24-11-2017

3/6

of Criminal Revision petition of the State in near future, it will

cause unnecessary delay in conclusion of trial, hence this bail

application is necessitated.

Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, learned Sr.Counsel for the

petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no laches on the part

of defence and he has co-operated in conclusion of trial and never

demanded time and when case was posted for argument of the

defence, prayer has been made and after rejection of the same the

State has preferred Cr.Rev. and how much the State is interested in

delaying the trial, will appear from the fact that case is still

pending in the High Court. It has also been submitted that as per

Article 21 of Constitution of India the petitioner is entitled for

expeditious trial and due to lingering of trial the same has been

curtailed. It has also been submitted that there was apprehension in

the mind of Hon’ble Apex Court about security of the witnesses

and also with a view to avoid tampering with the evidence and

threatening of the witnesses, bail bond of the petitioner was

cancelled but now, since evidence has been concluded and the

case is posted for argument, as such, there is no chance of

threatening the witnesses or tampering with the evidence, hence

the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner the order
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.52656 of 2017 (4) dt.24-11-2017

4/6

was reserved. However, in the meantime, an I.A. No.2445 of 2017

has been filed on behalf of petitioner stating that in Cr.Revision

No. 975 of 2017 this Court has allowed the State to convert the

same into an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and, as such, it

will cause much delay and session of Vidhan Sabha has been

commenced and in support of his contention, he has annexed the

notice, issued under signature of Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Sabha. It

has been submitted that Vidhan Sabha will be convened for the

period from 27.11.2017 to 1.12.2017, as such, the petitioner being

Member may be allowed to participate in the proceeding of

Vidhan Sabha as he being MLA of Vidhan Sabha.

Mr.Someshwar Dayal, APP has opposed the prayer for

bail stating that there is no delay in conclusion of trial as this is the

FIR of 2016 and trial has almost concluded. It has further been

submitted that evidence of Nodal Officers is essential for just

decision of the case, as such, State has filed a petition, which was

rejected and State has moved before Hon’ble Court. It has further

been submitted that in this case bail bond of the petitioner was

cancelled by Hon’ble Apex Court and, as such, propriety demands

that if the petitioner is so interested for granting bail he should

move before the Apex Court and not before this Court and in

support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.52656 of 2017 (4) dt.24-11-2017

5/6

Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh

Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another : (2004) 7 SCC 528 and a

decision dated 1.5.2013 of this Court in Cr.Misc.No. 5 of 2013

(Md. Shahabuddin vs. State of Bihar).

In reply to the said contention of State, learned counsel

for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner cannot be precluded

from filing fresh bail application on the ground that prayer for bail

was rejected earlier by the High Court or Hon’ble Apex Court and

since the evidence of the prosecution is closed, there is no cause of

apprehension.

Having heard both sides, this application for bail and

I.A.No. 2445 of 2017 are being disposed of by this common order.

In this case as noticed above bail bond of the petitioner was

cancelled by Hon’ble Apex Court and further the case is still

pending for argument and it is not concluded. It further appears

that State has filed a revision application against the order of

learned trial court for examination of Nodal Officers, which has

been directed to be converted into an application under Section

482 Cr.P.C. There does not appear to be an intentional delay on

the part of the State. Earlier also there was threat to the prosecutrix

and her family members and bail bond of the petitioner was

cancelled on that ground. On considering that interest of society is
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.52656 of 2017 (4) dt.24-11-2017

6/6

over the personal interest of the accused. Moreover, propriety

demands that the petitioner ought to have moved before the

Hon’ble Apex Court as his bail bonds were cancelled by Hon’ble

Apex Court.

Accordingly, this application as well as I.A.No.2445 of

2017 is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)
spal/-

U

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *