← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49420/2021rejected

Md. Ibrahim @ Md. Islam v. The State Of Bihar

2022-05-19Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49420 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2020 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

MD. IBRAHIM @ MD. ISLAM Son of Late Salim Resident of Village - Khajuri Milik, P.S.- Bhargama, District - Araria. 2.

Md. Washim Son of Md. Ibrahim @ Md. Islam Resident of Village - Khajuri Milik, P.S.- Bhargama, District - Araria.

3.

Md. Munna Son of Md. Juber Resident of Village - Khajuri Milik, P.S.- Bhargama, District - Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gopal Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sangeeta Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-05-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner no. 2 apprehends arrest in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 118 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 324, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. Nothing specific is alleged against this petitioner. Petitioner has no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49420 of 2021(4) dt.19-05-2022 2/2 criminal antecedent.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and there is direct allegation of assault against him which is supported by the injury report. Petitioner no. 2, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 2. The same is, therefore, rejected.

mcv/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T