← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7562/2021rejected

Samiruddin @ Sameer v. The State Of Bihar

2022-01-20Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7562 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2020 Thana- TERHAGACHH District- Kishanganj ====================================================== 1.

SAMIRUDDIN @ SAMEER Son of Aikan Ali Resident of Village - Jhala, P.S.- Terhagachh, District - Kishanganj.

2.

Sabena Daughter of Samiruddin Resident of Village - Jhala, P.S.- Terhagachh, District - Kishanganj.

3.

Khushela Begum @ Khushela Daughter of Samiruddin Resident of Village - Jhala, P.S.- Terhagachh, District - Kishanganj. 4.

Mazhar @ Md. Mazhar Son of Samiruddin Resident of Village - Jhala, P.S.- Terhagachh, District - Kishanganj.

5.

Azhar @ Md. Azhar Son of Samiruddin Resident of Village - Jhala, P.S.- Terhagachh, District - Kishanganj.

6.

Nausera Khatoon Wife of Samiruddin @ Sameer Resident of Village - Jhala, P.S.- Terhagachh, District - Kishanganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Diwakar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-01-2022 Heard both sides.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Terhagachh P.S. Case No.50 of 2020 registered under Section 307 and other minor sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have committed no offence and have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners.

The injuries

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7562 of 2021(3) dt.20-01-2022 2/2 sustained by the prosecution side are simple in nature. The petitioners have got no criminal antecedent.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the petitioners are alleged to have assaulted the informant and others with lathi and iron rod due to which they got injuries. Therefore, the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is rejected. Harish/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T