Md. Jabbar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5815 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-1996 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== MD. JABBAR S/O MOHAMMAD ABDUL JALIL R/O VILLAGEJUJHARPUR, P.S.- SARIYA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prakash Chandra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 26-08-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 123 of 1996(Sessions Trial No. 396 of 2017).

As per allegation, the informant was residing in Delhi for his livelihood. Four months prior to lodging of the FIR, the marriage of his sister was solemnized. On 10.09.1996, the accused persons kidnapped his sister for marriage or to kill her. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He has submitted further that the police have submitted final form against all the accused persons including

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5815 of 2022(2) dt.26-08-2022 2/2 the present petitioner.

The victim in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that the present petitioner kidnapped her at the point of knife and he also obtained her signature on blank papers.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the charge sheet was submitted against the present petitioner showing him absconder and the proceeding of the court was hampered for long period due to non-appearance of the present petitioner.

In view of aforesaid, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail, which is hereby rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

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