IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6131 of 2018
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -970 Year- 2011 Thana -WEST CHAM PARAN COMPLAINT District-
WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH)
Safique Mian, son of Late Sharif Mian, Resident of Mohalla- Khodanagar,
P.O.+P.S.- Motihari, Town, District- East Champaran.
…. …. Petitioner/s
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Hushan Ara, wife of Kaushar Mian, daughter of Arman Mian, Resident o f
Village- Majharia, Mahuawa, P.O. and P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West
…. …. Opposite Party/s
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, A.P.P.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
This application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) has been filed by the petitioner for
quashing of the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Bettiah in Cr. Misc. No. 140 of 2017 by which the learned
Sessions Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner filed for
extension of period of surrender before the court, vide order dated
28.10.2014 passed in A.B.P. No. 788 of 2014.
2. By order dated 28.10.2014, the petitioner, who is being
prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 498A of the
Indian penal Code, was granted pre-arrest bail with the condition to
furnish bail bond of rupees ten thousand (Rs.10,000/-) with two
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.6131 of 2018 dt.16-08-2018
sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of
Magistrate within two months. The petitioner failed to appear before
the court in time. He filed an application in the month of November,
2017 for extending the period of two months granted by the court
below for furnishing bail bond which was rejected by the learned
Sessions Judge vide order dated 20.11.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
140 of 2017. The said order dated 20.11.2017 is being challenged in
the present application.
3. The petitioner has not given any plausible explanation as
to why the order passed by the court whereby he was granted bail with
condition to furnish bail bond could not be complied with in time.
4. In my considered opinion, in absence of any valid
ground, if the application for modification of the order filed almost
three years after grant of bail has been rejected, no interference is
warranted by this Court.
5. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 23.08.2018