Kasim Mian v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46679 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -17 Year- 2016 Thana -BHADWAR District- GAYA ====================================================== Kasim Mian Son of Rojid Mian Resident of Vill- Narayanpur, P.S.- Maigra, District- Gays .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashhar Mustafa For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 22-11-2016 Heard Mr. Ashhar Mustafa for the petitioner and Mr. Dayal, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is facing prosecution under section 307 IPC vide Bhadwar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2016.

The wife and this petitioner, according to the FIR, hatched a conspiracy to do away with the informant. While he was sleeping with his wife, it is alleged that the wife, along with this petitioner, made murderous attempt to kill him (informant) by putting/stuffing clothe into his mouth and covering the face with a pillow. However, he escaped and raised a Hulla whereafter a search of the house was carried out and the petitioner was found hidden in the room.

The contention of the petitioner is that the informant

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46679 of 2016 (3) dt.22-11-2016 2/2 received only a cut-injury on the lips. There is no supporting medical report. Actually, the wife was responsible for attempt to kill him as she had some affairs with another person. The petitioner is in custody since 05.08.2016. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been submitted.

Learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that not only the allegation of attempt to kill the informant is made against the petitioner but he was also found inside the room. There is no explanation of his presence in the house of the informant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail. Prayer is accordingly rejected.

The petitioner shall have liberty to renew his prayer for bail after 05 months from today in the court below which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order in accordance with law. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U T