Md. Ansar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23547 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Md. Ansar Son Of Faruk Alam R/O Village- Pokhariya, P.S.- Terhagachh, District- Kishanganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Man Mohan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary For the Informant :
Mr. Amal Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 14-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act pending in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge 1st - cum-Special Judge, Kishanganj. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23547 of 2022(5) dt.14-11-2022 2/2 case. He submits that earlier the petitioner was filed a case against the informant and his family members thereafter the present case has been filed by the informant. He submits that from the pendency of the anticipatory bail application the process of Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. was issued by the learned Court below. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined the enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.32 of 2021. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T