Hazara Khatoon @ Shahjahan Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5028 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2016 Thana- KANTI THARMAL POWER DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Hazara Khatoon @ Shahjahan Khatoon, Wife of Naimuddin, Resident of Village- Bangra Chaupan, P.S. Kanti, District Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Mohammad Sufyan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 10-07-2019 Heard both sides.
Petitioner apprehends her arrest in Kanti (Panapur O.P.) P.S. Case No.122 of 2016, registered under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 379, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added vide order dated 30.03.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 08.09.2016, passed in Cr. Misc. No.30021 of 2016 but the petitioner fell ill and she could not surrender in the court. It is further submitted that the informant himself filed a petition before the S.D.J.M., West, Muzaffarpur stating that the petitioner was not assaulting the family members of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5028 of 2019(3) dt.10-07-2019 2/2 informant rather she was trying to pacify the quarrel. It appears that the informant made specific allegation that the petitioner also assaulted the family members of the informant and the son of the informant succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment. The petitioner resorted to tampering with the evidence by gaining over the informant and that is why the informant appears to have filed the petition. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected on 08.09.2016 and the petitioner evaded her appearance in the court below for about two years.
Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I do not find any fresh ground for considering the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T