Afzal Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32418 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -465 Year- 2016 Thana -SIKARPUR DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Afzal Ansari, Son of Hafiz Ansari, Resident of Pipara Chanki, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Sufiyan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Shikarpur P.S.Case No.465 of 2016, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

The petitioner is husband. The case is under Section 498A of the IPC.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to lodging of this case, he had lodged a case for restoration of conjugal right and thereafter the present case has been filed and the learned sessions Judge in the impugned order has mentioned that no injury report is available on the record. The petitioner is in custody for about three months.

Heard learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the petitioner. They have opposed the prayer for bail on the ground

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32418 of 2017 (2) dt.14-07-2017 2/2 that the petitioner is not ready to keep her. Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., West Champaran, Bettiah in connection with Shikarpur P.S.Case No.465 of 2016 with condition with condition Oone of the bailors of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned court. At the same time, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude it within a period of nine months. It is also made clear that the petitioner has to appear on each and every date before the learned trial court and he will not become absent without permission of the court or without showing any genuine reason, otherwise his bail bond shall be cancelled.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is allowed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U