Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32028/2016dismissed

Md. Jakki Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar

2016-08-30Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32028 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -372 Year- 2016 Thana -SAHARSA District- SAHARSA ====================================================== Md. Jakki Ahmad Son of Md. Azad Resident of Mohalla- Gangjala, Fakir Tola, P.S. & District Saharsa.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Dinesh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-08-2016 Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Singh, learned Additional Public prosecutor.

The sole petitioner apprehending his arrest in Saharsa P.S. Case No. 372 of 2016 registered for the offence under section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though petitioner has been named as accused in the F.I.R. there is no specific accusation against the petitioner. He further submits that allegation made in F.I.R. is not corroborated by the injury report i.e. Annexure - 2 and 3 to the petition. On aforesaid grounds a prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32028 of 2016 (2) dt.30-08-2016 2/2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the prayer for bail submits that on going through the F.I.R. it is evident that petitioner is the main accused. Against petitioner there is allegation that firstly he gave order and he also used farsa. Of- course there was no injury from farsa blow. Besides the present case petitioner is also accused in other cases, which fact has been mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find it a case to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T