LAWS(PAT)-2003-4-104

SUMAN KUMAR SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 07, 2003
Suman Kumar Sah Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has filed this application for cancellation of bail of opposite party No. 2 granted by Incharge, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia on 8.3.2002 in Naugachia Police Station Case No. 15 of 2002.

(2.) THE case of Petitioner, in short, is that on 26.1.2002, he lodged a case against opposite party No. 2 by getting his Fardbeyan recorded by police in which he stated that on 26.1.2002 at about 4 P.M. when he had gone to the house of the Petitioner for demanding his due amount, opposite party No. 2 gave him a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - out of due amount of Rs. 7,000/ -and told him that after half an hour, he would give him a further sum of Rs. 2,000/ -. Petitioner, thereafter, remained in the house of opposite party No. 2 and in the meantime, he started counting his money which he had collected from other customers and he had a total sum of Rs. 28,000/ -with him. In the meantime, opposite party No. 2 and one unknown assaulted him on his head with Garasa and he became unconscious and after regaining consciousness, when he started fleeing away from there, opposite party No. 2 snatched his money and he, in the injured condition, ran to the clinic of Dr. Shambhu Singh Versus State Of Bihar Mannan where he fell down and became unconscious and when he regained consciousness, he found that he was being treated by Dr. B.P. Singh. According to the Petitioner, a case under Sections 341, 324, 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code was registered against opposite party No. 2 and one unknown and he was examined by Dr. B.P. Singh who found serious injuries over his head (Annexure -2 series) and during investigation, a larger number of witnesses were examined by police who supported the case but opposite party No. 2 moved for bail before the learned Incharge Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia who by his order dated 8.3.2002 granted him bail without properly considering the case of prosecution. According to the Petitioner, the impugned order shows that learned Magistrate exercised his discretionary power in most mechanical way and he granted bail to opposite party No. 2 merely on two grounds that Investigating Officer could not send the case diary and there was no repetition of blow. The Petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party No. 2 by Court below.

(3.) AT present, generally lower courts are not granting bail in cases having such type of allegation supported by injury report. Since bail has already been granted (SIC) opposite party No. 2 and there is no illegation of Petitioner that after grant of all, opposite party No. 2 has in any way (sic)isused the privilege of bail in any manner, I do not think it proper to cancel the bail of opposite party No. 2 already granted (sic) Court below but that this matter must (sic)e placed before the Standing Committee (sic)r showing the nature of order which has been passed by Court below in such type case.