Md. Taufique Quaraishi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.12736 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -74 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA PS District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Md. Taufique Quraishi, Son of Nashim Quraishi, Resident of VillageRatni, Police Station- Shakurabad, District- Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Narayan Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh 1, APP.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-06-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mahila P.S. Case No. 74 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354B and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. The victim alleged that on 25.11.2016 while she was going to appear in the examination Ajay Kumar, Md. Taufique Quraishi, the petitioner and Guddu Choudhary intercepted her. Ajay Kumar was armed with pistol caught her and on protest the petitioner and Guddu Choudhary abused the informant. The informant informed the students of the college who caught the petitioner and got him inside the college.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. The victim earlier
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12736 of 2017 (3) dt.30-06-2017 2/2 lodged Shakurabad P.S. Case No. 102 of 2016 in which the petitioner has already been allowed anticipatory bail vide order dated 31.01.2017 in Cr. Misc. No. 3098 of 2017. On account of enmity the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the informant made contradictory version but, from perusal of the FIR and the case diary it appears that the petitioner and others stopped the informant while she was going to appear at her examination. On earlier occasion also the petitioner entered into the house of the informant.
Considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T