Md. Jamshed @ Sikendar @ Sakendar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16768 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2018 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

MD. JAMSHED @ SIKENDAR @ SAKENDAR AND ORS Son of Md. Jabbar Resident of Village - Paikpar, Ward No. 5, P.S.- Bhargama, Distt - Araria.

2.

Md. Parvej Son of Md. Jabbar Resident of Village - Paikpar, Ward No. 5, P.S.- Bhargama, Distt - Araria.

3.

Bibi Samsha Wife of Md. Jabbar Resident of Village - Paikpar, Ward No. 5, P.S.- Bhargama, Distt - Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Viveka Nandsingh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 17-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 103 of 2018/ G.R. No. 1386 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354B, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are of clean antecedent, are innocent and have not committed any offence. In fact, there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case on account of a land

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16768 of 2019(4) dt.17-06-2019 2/2 dispute. Hence, the petitioners may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioners have brutally assaulted the husband of the informant by the deadly weapon and altogether eighteen injuries have been caused to him which is evident from the injury report at paragraph 30 of the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to these petitioners is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T