Haidar Emam @ Guddu @ Guddu Mian @ Saiyad Haider Imam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38137 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2023 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

HAIDAR EMAM @ GUDDU @ GUDDU MIAN @ SAIYAD HAIDER IMAM SON OF YUSUF EMAM MOHALLA KARAN SARAY , CHANWAR TAKIYA , PS SASARAM TOWN , DIST. ROHTAS 2.

AMIR EQUBAL @ BALI @ AMIR EKBAL @ AMIR EKBAL BALI SON OF YUSUF EMAM MOHALLA KARAN SARAY , CHANWAR TAKIYA , PS SASARAM TOWN , DIST. ROHTAS 3.

MUZAFFAR EMAM @ CHHOTU BABU @ SAIYAD MOHAMMAD MUZAFFAR @ MOJAFFAR EMAM @ CHHOTA BABU SON OF YUSUF EMAM MOHALLA KARAN SARAY , CHANWAR TAKIYA , PS SASARAM TOWN , DIST. ROHTAS 4.

SHAHID EMAM @ PAPPU @ KHADIM @ SAIYAD SUHEL SON OF YUSUF EMAM MOHALLA KARAN SARAY , CHANWAR TAKIYA , PS SASARAM TOWN , DIST. ROHTAS 5.

AURANGZED EMAM @ BADA BABU @ SAIYAD AURANGZED EMAM @ SAIYED AURANGZEB EMAM SON OF YUSUF EMAM MOHALLA KARAN SARAY , CHANWAR TAKIYA , PS SASARAM TOWN , DIST. ROHTAS 6.

DANISH EMAM @ SAIYAD DANISH EMAM @ SYED DANISH EMAM SON OF YUSUF EMAM MOHALLA KARAN SARAY , CHANWAR TAKIYA , PS SASARAM TOWN , DIST. ROHTAS 7.

TANVIR EMAM @ TAHLU MIAN @ TANWEER EMAM SON OF YUSUF EMAM MOHALLA KARAN SARAY , CHANWAR TAKIYA , PS SASARAM TOWN , DIST. ROHTAS ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1 Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 01-08-2023 Heard the parties.

2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 387, 504/34

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38137 of 2023(2) dt.01-08-2023 2/3 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Allegedly, the petitioners intervened in the construction work, that was being done by the informant in his land. The petitioners demanded 15 lakhs ransom from the informant in order to do construction work. They also threatened the informant by means of several weapons.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is an admitted land dispute between the parties and title suit no.112 of 2022 and title suit no.147 of 2023 is pending between them. He further submits that the petitioners have been granted benefit of Section 41(A) of the Cr.PC by the police. Petitioners have criminal antecedent, mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that the petitioners are not party in title suit no.112 of 2022. He further submits that after filing of the present case by the informant, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38137 of 2023(2) dt.01-08-2023 3/3 title suit no.147 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioners. 6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as there is an admitted land dispute between the parties and a title suit is also pending between them, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.58 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T