Md. Shadab Alam @ Md.Shadab v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22438 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -183 Year- 2014 Thana -SHERGHATI District- GAYA ====================================================== MD. SHADAB ALAM @ MD.SHADAB, S/o Anwar Hussain, R/o villageDavrampur, P.S.- Sherghati, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Shamma Parveen, D/O Md. Moin, R/O Dhawrampur, P.S.-Sherghati, District-Gaya.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Iftekhar Mahmood(APP) For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jagdish Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-09-2016 The present anticipatory bail is for renewal of the earlier application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Sherghati P.S. Case No.183 of 2014, G.R. No.864 of 2014, registered for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Sherghati, Gaya.

The ground made out is that after passing of the previous order dated 23.07.2015 in Cr. Misc. No.20235 of 2015, the girl in question has signed a compromise petition for settling the disputes.

In order to ascertain the veracity of the said

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22438 of 2016 (5) dt.28-09-2016 2/2 compromise petition, O.P. No.2 was directed to appear in person and on her appearance, she has categorically stated that her signature and the signatures of her parents on the said compromise petition were obtained by use of threat. She was also made to marry with another cousin under such threat. Accordingly, this Court finds that the compromise petition is nothing but a hoax.

In view of such facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the prayer for renewal of anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected. (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T