ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shailesh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

(2.) In the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the observations/remarks made by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad against the petitioner while wing an Anticipatory Bail petition filed on behalf of the accused Shailesh Kumar Choudhary who was named in the F.I.R. It Wears from the perusal of the impugned after passed by the Sessions Judge, that earned Sessions Judge has made an observation that from the facts which has some on the record and according to submissions made, it appears that Arun Kumar is the main accused in this case but as yet he has not been made accused in an investigation. In the earlier paragraphs of this very order the learned Sessions Judge has observed that on the basis of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation is still pending it further appears that Arun Kumar-Claimant of the court was not made accused as yet.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said observation of the learned Sessions Judge while hearing the Anticipatory Bail application of some other accused, has caused serious prejudice to him and because of those observations the Police is trying to arrest him and steps was being taken for cancellation of his coal licence. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be genuine. All the observations made against the petitioner in the order dated 21.2.2003 of the Sessions Judge, shall not be used , against him. However, it is made clear that if the Police who are investigating the case finds any material against the petitioner then in that case the Police would be at liberty to arrest the accused in the said case.