Md. Guddu And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.49117 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -234 Year- 2014 Thana -SITAMARHI District- SITAMARHI ======================================================
1. Md. Guddu Son of Late Md. Shamim @Shamim Mansoori .
2. Md. Shahid Son of Md. Gani
3. Md. Saddam Son of Md. Haidar,
4. Abdul Ghani @Md. Abdul Bani Mansoori Son of Md. Basir
5. Md. Haidar, Son of Md. Basir
6. Amna Khatoon Wife of Late Md. Shamim @Shamim Mansoori
7. Khusmuda Khatoon Daughter of Md. Gani
8. Gudiya Khatoon Daughter of Md. Haider
9. Rukhsana Khatoon Wife of Md. Saddam
10. Md. Jahid Son of Md. Gani All Resident of Village - Hussaina Pokhar, P.S. Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh-5 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2015 Heard both sides.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Sitamarhi P.S. Case no. 234 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 436 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant named the petitioners and alleged that Md. Shahid, Md. Sadam and others assaulted him on account of land dispute. Thereafter other accused persons came and set ablaze the house of the informant.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49117 of 2014 (3) dt.13-05-2015 2/3 It is submitted that Md. Abdul Gani Mansoori filed Sitamarhi P.S. Case no. 196/14 on 12.03.2014. He also filed Sitamarhi P.S. Case no. 233/14 under Section 436 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code against Md. Khurshid Mansoori and others. The occurrence took place due to land dispute. It appears that Petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and petitioner no. 10 are alleged to have assaulted the informant and his family members and set ablaze the house of the informant. Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners (nos. 1 to 5 & 10) above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. So far as the case of petitioner nos. 6 to 9 namely, Amna Khatoon, Khusmuda Khatoon, Gudiya Khatoon and Rukhsana Khatoon is concerned, they are ladies. They are of course named in the FIR but no specific allegation is made against them.
Considering the facts aforesaid, the petitioners (nos. 6 to 9) above named in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49117 of 2014 (3) dt.13-05-2015 3/3 each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 234 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi/- U