LAWS(PAT)-1997-4-53

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 23, 1997
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has applied for bail in a Fodder Scam case under Sections 109, 120B, 409, 407, 468, 471, 473, 474, 477 -A IPC and 13 (2), 13 (i) (c) (d) of the P.C. Act on the ground that he has remained in custody for more than 90 days and the final form has not been submitted as yet.

(2.) TO appreciate the point it is apt to state the facts in brief RC Case No. 39 (A) of 1996 -Pat was registered on the statement of the Rajiv Arun Ekka, Assistant Magistrate & Collector, Dumka against 24 accused person, Baba Chemical Works, Patna is accused at Item No. 15 and the petitioner is the proprietor of the said firm. Allegation is that the huge amount of public money has been misappropriated by playing frauds by the Officers of the Animal Husbandn Department and the Proprietors of the Firms. It is not necessary to state the facts in details as the bail has not been prayed for on merit.

(3.) AN anticipatory bail application was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Special Judge. He rejected the said application by order dated 26.8.1996 on the ground that there is no apprehension of arrest for the reason that the petitioner is already under custody in some other case. Thereafter on 2.9.1996 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for his production and remand in this case i.e., Special Case No. 41/1996. On 12.9.1996 the Special Judge issued a production warrant fixing 21.9.1996 for hearing on the matter of remand. On 21.9.1996 learned Counsel for the CBI took time to move against the said order Again the said matter was not taken up and thereafter petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 13.12.1996 to release him on bail on the ground that he has remained in custody in this case on remand for more than 90 days, he is entitled to the privilege of bail under Section 167.(2) (a) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The Special Judge by order dated 23.12.1996 rejected the said prayer on the ground that as the petitioner has never been taken into custody nor remanded in this case, there is no question of his remaining in custody of more than 90 days.