Qutubuddin Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22859 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2018 Thana- SAHAJITPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Qutubuddin Ansari aged about 25 years, Male, Son of Azmer Ansari a resident of Village - Piparpati, P.S.- Sahajitpur, District - Saran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Harish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Harendra Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner, in the present case, has been granted privilege of provisional anticipatory bail vide order dated 11.04.2019 in connection with Sahajitpur P.S. Case No. 101/2018 registered under sections 363, 34 of the I.P.C. and later on Sections 302, 364, 201 of the I.P.C. were added, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M. - 6, Saran at Chapra.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seems to have been falsely implicated on mere suspicion., No body has seen him going with the deceased and in fact during investigation no evidence has been collected by the police to connect this petitioner with the alleged occurrence of killing of the said Chunnu Ansari. Learned counsel for the informant as well as the State have jointly submitted that in course of investigation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22859 of 2019(3) dt.18-07-2019 2/2 police has got the CDR of the mobile number of the deceased and his beloved, and from the CDR, it has transpired that they were talking repeatedly for long time. It has also come that from various mobile numbers calls were coming on the mobile of the beloved of the deceased. In course of argument, this court wanted to know specifically as to whether the Investigating Officer or the Supervising Officer has found any mobile number of this petitioner or anything like that to come to a conclusion that this petitioner had also been in touch with the said lady and the deceased. Learned counsel for both the State as well as informant submit that no such evidence have been revealed in the case diary.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court confirms provisional anticipatory bail of the petitioner and direct that let the petitioner be allowed to continue on bail on the same bail bond, however, subject to condition prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T