Kalimullah Ansari @ Kalimullah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33346 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -53 Year- 2018 Thana -RAMNAGAR District- WEST CHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Kalimullah Ansari @ Kalimullah, Son of Late Hazi Abdul Kudus Ansari, Resident of Village- Sohasa Chhawgharia, P.S.- Ramnagar, District- West Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP For the Informant : Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2018 Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner is in custody since 11.02.2018 in connection with Ram Nagar P.S. Case No.53 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the informant is not the eye-witness to the occurrence and her statement was only based on the statement of the villagers, which cannot hold credibility. It is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33346 of 2018 (3) dt.09-07-2018 2/2 further submitted that only on the basis of the statement of the informant based on the statement of the villagers, that the present case has been lodged implicating the sons, which include the present petitioner.

Diary in the present case was called for, which has since been received.

Learned counsel for the informant is also present and has resisted the bail application.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and upon consideration of the materials in the case diary, including the statement made by the daughter of the informant at paragraph 10 of the case diary, it appears that there is cogent material against this petitioner also, implicating him in connection with the present case. As such, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T