FAKIRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner Fakira Singh who is an accused in Jandaha P.S case No. 71/82 dated 27.5.1982 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code ' The allegation is that the petitioner, along with others, went with Chhara and bomb on 27.5.1982 and committed dacoity.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, however, is that he is a Lokdal candidate and the prosecution party belong to Congress (I) party and they were out to involve the petitioner in some case or the other, inasmuch as on 3.3.1982 vide Annexure-2, Mr. Ram Bilas Paswan, an M.P., wrote to the District Magistrate, Vaishali that there is a threat of the petitioner being involved by the local people as he belongs to Lokdal, a political party On 24-3-1982 the President of India wrote to Mr. Paswan acknowledging a letter dated' 23-2-1982 from him and assuring him that the State Government has been appraised of this fact. On 5.4.1982 Mr. Paswan wrote to the Superintendent of police Vaishali stating that the upper class people are out to oppress the petitioner' AH these correspondents some of which with law and order authority arose not in remote past but a month before the occurrence, i.e, 27.5.1982 Learned lawyer of the petitioner contends, that this case is outcome of political rivalry and as apprehended earlier a case of false implication. With these allegations Sessions Judge, Vaishali, was moved for grant of anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned Session Judge dismissed the petition of preliminary point alone without touching the merit of the case. In the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, once a warrant of arrest is issued, Court's jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code') is ousted and a petition for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable Few cases were cited before him, but the learned Sessions Judge is of the opinion that none of the cases decide the question which fell for consideration before him. Learned Sessions Judge admits in his order, that from a mere reading of Section 438 of the Code he of course does not find any constrain this regard.