Amar Chaudhary, son of Late Gobind Chaudhary vs The State of Bihar

Heard the parties.

Opposite party No. 2 is an accused in Balia P.S.

Case No. 64 of 2017, registered for the offence punishable

under Sections 341, 323, 326, 307 and 504 / 36 of the Indian

Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai, by an order,

dated 24.06.2017, has allowed him the privilege of anticipatory

bail.

This application, under Section 439(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed seeking

cancellation of bail by the informant of the case, mainly on the

ground that anticipatory bail application of similarly

circumstanced co-accused, namely, Md. Sonu, was rejected by

the court below and immediately, thereafter, the learned

Sessions Judge has allowed the anticipatory bail application

filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

On perusal of the impugned order and the

allegation as made in the First Information Report, I find that

there is no illegality in exercise of discretion by the court

below while allowing opposite party No. 2, the privilege of

bail, since there is no allegation that the fire, opened by the

said opposite party, hit the informant. It is true that

anticipatory bail application of other co-accused, namely, Md.

Sonu, in similar circumstance, has been rejected by the court

below, but grant of bail to opposite party No. 2, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, does not appear to be incorrect

exercise of discretion.

This application has no merit and is,

accordingly, dismissed.