Md. Rahman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8905 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -78 Year- 2015 Thana -SRI NAGAR District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Md. Rahman, son of Late Hazi Abdul Mazid @ Mahiuddin Resident of Village- Naso Tola, Police Station- Shrinagar, District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A. Dayal (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 12-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Shrinagar P.S. Case No. 78/15 for offences alleged under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that petitioner on 11.11.2015 at about 4.00 P.M. after seeing the dead body of his brother did not inform him and raised suspicion that petitioner is knowing about the murder of his brother but is not disclosing.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, has not committed any offence and the only allegation, as alleged by the informant, is that he had

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8905 of 2016 (3) dt.12-05-2016 2/3 seen the dead body but did not inform the informant, which has been stated by all the witnesses and, hence, only on the basis of suspicion petitioner has been made accused. He further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and there is no eyewitness to the said occurrence. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits as per paragraph 9 of the case diary that the information regarding dead body was given to the petitioner, who was also working in the field, but he did not inform the informant and all the witnesses have unanimously stated that the petitioner in spite of knowledge of the dead body had not informed the informant.

Learned APP for the State also makes the same submission as that of the learned counsel for the informant and opposes the prayer for bail.

Be that as it may, since the petitioner is not named accused but the allegation upon him is only not disclosing that he saw the dead body, let petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8905 of 2016 (3) dt.12-05-2016 3/3 Madhepura, in connection with Shrinagar P.S. Case No. 78/15, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajesh/- U T