Sarfraj Khan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33132 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2020 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Sarfraj Khan Son of Samimul Haque Khan Resident of Village- Pandari, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran.

2.

Miswahul Haque @ Misbahul Haque Khan Son of Samimul Haque Khan Resident of Village- Pandari, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran. 3.

Zafar Khan S/o- Ahmad Khan Resident of Village- Pandari, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran.

4.

Saheb Khan @ Nayak Khan S/o- Munna Khan Resident of Village- Koeli, P.S.- Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 27-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through virtual court proceedings.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Dhaka P.S. Case No.336 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 448, 324, 325, 326, 307, 380, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners and other co-accused persons are said to have assaulted the informant, her husband, son, nephew and daughters of her sister by means of different weapons on different parts of their bodies causing injuries to them.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33132 of 2021(3) dt.27-01-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. There is case and counter case between the parties and both sides sustained injuries. It is further submitted that the injuries are simple in nature. It is submitted that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail application.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are involved in the present occurrence. From perusal of the case diary, it appears that there is ample evidence against the petitioners in the case diary to show their involvement in the occurrence.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Sanjay/- U T