Patna High CourtCR. MISC./57769/2019rejected

Karimuddin @ Md. Karimuddin v. The State Of Bihar

2019-09-18Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57769 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-963 Year-2018 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Karimuddin @ Md. Karimuddin, Aged about 60 years, Male, Son of Abdul Majid, Resident of Village - Gurmi, Ward No. 11, P.S.- Forbesganj (Simraha O.P.), District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kundan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Veena Rani Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-09-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Forbesganj (Simraha) P.S. Case No.963 of 2018, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that when he along with his father was carrying Rs.1,50,000/- for payment of consideration amount of land on a motorcycle and reached near Devpura village, Md. Jaid and the petitioner Md. Karimuddin stopped their motorcycle. Md. Jaid assaulted the informant by sharp edged weapon on his head and unknown persons standing there snatched the bag.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner filed Forbesganj (Simraha) P.S. Case No.740 of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57769 of 2019(2) dt.18-09-2019 2/2 2015 against the informant and others and that is why petitioner has been made accused in the case. No specific allegation is made against the petitioner but it appears that the informant made specific allegation that the petitioner and Md. Jaid stopped the informant and his father and thereafter other accused persons accompanying the petitioner fled away after snatching the bag containing money. The witnesses also supported the allegation made by the informant.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

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