Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30279/2016rejected

Md. Irfan v. The State Of Bihar

2016-10-04Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30279 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -80 Year- 2013 Thana -HASANPUR District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Md. Irfan S/o Late Md. Nayeem Nadaf Resident of village-HasanpurSultanpur, Police Station-Amarpur,District- Banka .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-10-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 80/2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant headmaster of Rajkiya Middle School, Maldah alleged that one person rang from his mobile no. 9939372474 on 03.07.2013 and demanded Rs. 1,20,000/-. The caller disclosed his name as Arun Mahto, Maldah. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., but during the course of investigation in para 48 and 73 it has come that the S.I.M. no. 9939372474 was issued in the name of Anil Kumar Das son of Kamleshwar Das and mobile no. 9709908504 was issued in the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30279 of 2016 (3) dt.04-10-2016 2/2 name of Md. Irfan son of Md. Nayeem Nadaf resident of village - Reshamba, post - Godda. The photograph of the petitioner appears on the voter identity card does not tally with the identity proof of the petitioner Md. Irfan on the basis of which S.I.M. was issued. It appears that Md. Irfan attached his photograph for issuance of the S.I.M and also attached the voter identity card. Both the photographs tally with each other.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner that from mobile of the petitioner extortion money was demanded, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T