AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.