Patna High CourtCR. MISC./10565/2019rejected

Md. Mustak v. The State Of Bihar

2019-04-11Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10565 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2018 Thana- KUMAR KHAND District- Madhepura ====================================================== Md. Mustak, Son of Md. Saloon @ Shealun Resident of Tukuliya, Police Station- Kumar Khand, District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md. Harun Quareshi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 11-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner is accused in connection with Kumarkhand P.S. Case No. 160 of 2018 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 34(B), 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to land dispute. He is in custody since 17.08.2018. Further submission is that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner with submission that it would appear from the F.I.R. itself that there is direct allegation of repeated farsa blow on the head of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10565 of 2019(3) dt.11-04-2019 2/2 father of the informant against the petitioner causing serious head injury. Further submission is that in various paragraphs of the case diary, the witnesses have fully supported the alleged incident and the allegation against the petitioner seems to be very serious one.

Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Nasimul/- U T