Md. Mirajul @ Md. Miyazul And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6630 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -83 Year- 2016 Thana -JAGDISHPUR District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. MD. MIRAJUL @ MD. MIYAZUL, s/o Md. Nazir.

2. Md. Sahrukh @ Md. Hiru s/o Md. Jamal, both are r/v Garhotiya, P.S.- Lodipur, District-Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-03-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 83/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Father of the deceased lodged the case against unknown after recovery of dead body of his daughter Fatima. During course of investigation, the brother of the deceased and other witnesses stated that one Tajjamul was talking with the deceased in the evening of the fateful day. The petitioners were also found in the company of Md. Tajjamul.

It is submitted that save and except suspicion there is no material against the petitioners. No external injury was found on the dead body of the deceased, but from perusal of the case

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6630 of 2017 (3) dt.08-03-2017 2/2 diary it appears that many witnesses saw the petitioners in the company of Md Tajjamul in the evening of the fateful day. From the post-mortem reports it appears that there were so many antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased. Bruises were found over right side of forehead, right cheek, shoulder and hands. Similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Md. Tajjamul was granted regular bail by this Court vide order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3731/2017. The case of the petitioners stands almost on the same footing.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T