Mangli Khatoon And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4689 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -100 Year- 2015 Thana -AMDABAD District- KATIHAR ====================================================== 1.

Mangli Khatoon, wife of Mustaque.

2.

Hirwa @ Sk. Hirwa, son of Mustaque.

Both are residents of village-Bairiya, P.S.-Amdabad, DistrictKatihar. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Advocate Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dinesh Singh(App) For the informant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 08-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this application so far as the petitioner no.1 Mangli Khatoon is concerned to enable her to surrender and seek regular bail.

Leave is granted.

This application as against the petitioner no.1 is dismissed as withdrawn.

The petitioner no. 2 apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4689 of 2016 (2) dt.08-04-2016 2/2 It is contended that so far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, there is general and omnibus allegation against him as he has incorrectly been described as husband of the deceased and, in fact, husband of the deceased is one Khusnasib, who is already in custody.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner no.2 , namely, Hirwa @ Sk. Hirwa be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today in connection with Amdabad P.S. Case No.100/2015, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand Rupees) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar subject to the conditions as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) V.K. Pandey/- U T