Md. Mojib And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.46172 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -143 Year- 2011 Thana -BAHADURGANJ District- KISANGANJ ======================================================
1. Md. Mojib, S/o Late Ali Hasan
2. Hasna Ansari @ Md. Hasna, S/o Late Manjar Ansari, Resident of Domohani, Bungama, P.S.- Bahadurganj, District - Kishanganj .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jagdish Thakur, son of Late Ramkisan Thakur, R/O-Korath, Bangabha, Domohani, P.S.- Bahadurganj, District-Kishanganj .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Sinha, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Pronati Singh (APP) For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Archana Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/informant as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection Bahadurganj P.S. Case No.143 of 2011 for allegedly having committed the offences under Sections 365, 366, 372 and 498/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the allegation has been made against them under the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46172 of 2014 (5) dt.10-11-2015 2/2 aforementioned sections of the I.P.C., at the present moment, the matter has been compromised. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/informant endorses the same view and submits that in the year 2013, there was a compromise between the parties.
In view of the fact that the offence is not compoundable, I am not inclined to accept the said compromise in view of the fact that the petitioners have all along been evading arrest and processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. had been issued well in the year 2011. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioners and that they have been evading the process of the Court for so many years, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners. It is, accordingly, rejected. (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T