PARMAND KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by the petitioner has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 in B.P. No. 2105 of 2000, to opposite party nos. 3 & 4 in B. P. No. 2110 of 2000 on2028.11.2000 and to opposite party nos. 5, 6 and 7 in B.P. No. 1962 of 2000 on 19.10.2000, all granted by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, in connection with Khizersarai P.S. case no. 73 of 2000.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this application are that on the basis of the fardbeyan of the petitioner recorded on 18.7.2000, Khizersarai P.S case no. 73/2000 was registered by the police 25 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act (Annexure -1). On 8.8.2000, an application for bail was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya, on behalf of co -accused Prahlad Singh and six others in which opposite party nos. 2 to 4 were also petitioners. This application was heard on 9.8.2000, when learned Sessions Judge, Gaya called for the case diary and the post mortem examination report. On 13.9.2000, case diary was 30 produced by the learned P.P. but the petitioners of the bail application took time and the case was adjourned to 19.9.2000. On 19.9.2000, on the prayer of the petitioners of the bail application supervision note was called for and the case was adjourned to next date and when on 12.10.2000, the bail application was taken up it was again adjourned on the ground of non -availability of the counsel of the petitioners. The case was then adjourned and fixed on 4.11.2000. In the meantime, 35 annual vacation ensured and on 19.10.2000 learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, who was holding court is vacation Judge granted bail to the opposite party nos. 5, 6 and 7 without summoning either the case diary, post mortem examination report or the supervision note. Thereafter, on 4.11.2000, when the bail application filed earlier by co -accused Prahalad Singh and six others including the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, was taken up before the learned Sessions Judge, 40 Gaya, was withdrawn on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 by filing two seprate petitions for withdrawal (Annexure -5) and when again on 20.11.2001, learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, was the In -charge sessions Judge in absence of the learned sessions Judge, Gaya, the opposite party no. 2 filed bail petition which was numbered as B.P. No. 2105 of 2000 and the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 filed separate bail petition which was numbered as B.P. No. 2110 of 5 2000 and both the bail petitions were allowed on 28.11.2000 by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, although on that date the petitioner filed two separate petitions bringing it to the notice of the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, that these petitioners had earlier filed bail petition no. 1329 of 2000 before the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya, but the same was withdrawn by him on 4.11.2000 and, therefore, it was desirable that their bail petitions should be 10 heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya (Annexure -7).

(3.) OPPOSITE party nos. 2 to 7 have appeared and opposed the prayer of the petitioner for cancellation of their bail by filing two separate replies to the show cause notices issued to them, one on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7 and another on behalf of the opposite party nos. 3 and 4. Their case is that the court below after considering the fact that no overt act was 5 alleged against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 in the F.I.R. as well as case in the protest petition filed by the petitioner in court granted bail to them and the petitioner has not been able to make out any ground for cancellation of bail. They have prayed for dismissal of the present petition filed on behalf of the petitioner.