Md. Ansar Khan @ Ansar Khan @ Saheb v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5842 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-154 Year-2021 Thana- MAHESI District- East Champaran ====================================================== MD. ANSAR KHAN @ ANSAR KHAN @ SAHEB SON OF LATE ANWAR KHAN R/O VILLAGE- MOGALPURA CHAKLALU, WARD NO. 08, P.S.- MEHSI, DIST.- EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.J.N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 24-08-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J.N. Thakur, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mehsi P.S. Case No. 154 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, some altercation was going on between the parties and when the mother of the informant came to rescue him, the petitioner dashed her on the ground due to which she sustained injuries and she died.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5842 of 2022(2) dt.24-08-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is land dispute between the parties. He has submitted further that it was not intention of the petitioner to commit murder of the deceased and during the investigation in supervision note it has emerged that the case was not found true under Section 302 of the IPC rather it was found true under Section 304 of the IPC.

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P has opposed the prayer for and submitted that the present petitioner dashed the mother of the informant due to which she fell on the ground and died.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T