Md. Jalauddin v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17383 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2018 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== MD. JALAUDDIN Son of Md. Nezam @ Md. Newaj @ Shekh Nezam @ Nezamuddin Resident of Village- Lahladpur, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2019 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Madhuban Police Station Case No. 66 of 2018, disclosing offences under Sections 341/342/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is order giver and upon his order, Md. Kalim fired upon the informant, causing fire arm injury.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is merely an order giver and he deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor draws attention

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17383 of 2019(5) dt.16-07-2019 2/2 of this Court to paragraph 3 of the bail application, wherein the petitioner has declared that he has got no criminal antecedent and the petitioner is being specific about that by explaining the fact that the impugned order wrongly records regarding his criminal antecedent. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, referring to paragraph 41 of the case diary, submits that altogether three criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, which has been deliberately suppressed by the petitioner and considering the conduct of the petitioner, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that wrong statement has been made in the bail application regarding criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √