Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18793/2017dismissed

Bibi Sajan @ Sajankhanam @ Sajan Pravin v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-04-26Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18793 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -6 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Bibi Sajan @ Sajankhanam @ Sajan Pravin D/o Md Noor Alam Resident of village Dhangama P. S. Mahalgaon, District- Araria .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Md. Hasan @ Hasan Khan, son of Farmauddin, Resident of Village Dhangama P. S. Mahalgaon, District Araria.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Rita Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The Opposite party No.2 was allowed anticipatory bail by an order, dated 20.05.2016, passed in Criminal Misc. No. 20292 of 2016 in connection with Araria (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2015, registered for the offence punishable under Section 376(ii) (N) of the Indian Penal Code. While granting anticipatory bail, this Court observed as was found from the First Information Report that the refusal by the petitioner to marry the informant was the reason behind lodging of the First Information Report. This application has been filed seeking cancellation of bail so granted to Opposite party No.2. It is the stand of the petitioner that Opposite party No.2 is threatening the prosecution witnesses. It is also the case of the petitioner that after grant of

anticipatory bail, the police have now submitted charge-sheet under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the POCSO Act and on that ground the bail so granted to Opposite party No.2 deserves to be cancelled. I do not find any reason to cancel the anticipatory bail so granted to Opposite party no.2, in view of the reason assigned in the order, whereby anticipatory bail was granted to Opposite party No.2.

Since the investigation is already complete, no purpose would be served by cancelling the privilege of anticipatory bail so granted to Opposite party No.2.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/- U