Naiyar Imam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26810 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2020 Thana- PARIHAR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.

NAIYAR IMAM S/O LATE MUZAFFAR IMAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALASAT, P.S-NANPUR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI, AT PRESENT R/O MOHALLA-RAJTOLI, P.S-LAHERIYASARAI, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA.

2.

LAXMI SAH S/O LATE BAIJNATH SAH R/O VILLAGE-BELMOHAN, P.S-PUPRI, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI.

3.

GOVIND SAHANI S/O SUKHDEO SAHANI R/O VILLAGETELIYAPOKHAR, P.S.-SADAR, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Virendra Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-04-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Parihar P.S. Case No. 06 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Informant, Pappu Kumar, lodged FIR stating therein that some unknown thieves stolen away his tractor and on the same day one tractor belonging to Raj Kishore Sah, was also stolen away by the thieves.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26810 of 2021(3) dt.05-04-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the police officials have falsely implicated the present petitioners in this case, as such, the petitioner No. 1 has filed a complaint petition as C.R. No. 50/2019 in the court of C.J.M., Darbhanga. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Shailendra Kumar, has submitted that the investigation is still going on and the petitioners have several criminal cases against them. As such, I do not think it a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T