SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Pat) 1015

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
Sudhanshu Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Daya Shankar Prasad
For the Respondents: Mr. Shailendra Kumar-I

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

This Court has experienced a growing tendency among the litigants of lodging criminal cases to settle their scores, arising out of disputes, which are fundamentally civil in nature and chase the accused at all levels including all possible levels, which includes invocation of section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), for cancellation of bail/anticipatory bail, if bail/anticipatory bail is allowed by a Court. This, of late, has taken a shape of menace and such misadventure, in my view, needs to be checked and firmly dealt with in a manner, which may have deterrent effect also.

2. The present case is an example where I am of the view that filing of the present application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 is gross abuse of the process of Court.

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 is wife of Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 is wife of Opposite Party No. 5.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 4 had entered into an agreement for sale of their 01 (one) acre of land and Cold Storage along with entire structures, machine














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top