KAMLESH KUMAR ALIAS NAVLESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) PETITIONERS are co -villagers of husband of the deceased lady in a case under Section 304B and other Sections of the IPC. They have apprehension of arrest in view of the process issued against them in a protest -cum -complaint case. It has been submitted that there is no allegation of petitioner participating in the actual occurrence and they have been implicated because they participated in the funeral.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2003 SC 4662 [: 2003(4) PLJR (SC) 217] to point out that Supreme Court in that case clearly held that Courts have power to grant anticipatory bail in non - bailable offences even when cognizance is taken or charge -sheet is filed provided fact of case requires Courts to do so. He has further submitted that the judgment in the case of Bharat Chaudhary was not considered in the case of Sunita Devi because the issue in the latter case was different and main consideration before the Court was whether application for regular bail can be entertained without the accused being physically in custody and under the control of the Court concerned. This Court finds merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners.