Md. Kutubuddin @ Kutubuddin @ Mallo And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 30598 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -206 Year- 2007 Thana -PIRPAINTY District- BHAGALPUR ===========================================================
1. Md. Kutubuddin @ Kutubuddin @ Mallo.
2. Md. Himayun @ Humayun Both sons of Md. Bashiruddin
3. Md. Husnain @ Husnain, Son of Late Md. Islam.
4. Ali @ Alia @ Shekh Ali, Son of Late Wahid, All residents of village - Rajganj, Police Station Pirpainty, District - Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. S. M.U. Ashraf, Advocate For the State :
Ms. Anita Kumari, A.P.P.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Pirpainty P.S. Case No. 206 of 2007 dated 06.11.2007 instituted under Sections 147/148/341/353/224/225 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioners is of causing obstruction to the police party in the lawful discharge of their duties as well as other related offences.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that against the petitioner no. 1, the allegation is that he was caught and then other co-accused managed to set him free and because of 13 Kg. Ganja being recovered, a separate case has also been registered. It is
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30598 of 2016 dt.22-10-2016 2/2 submitted that it is highly improbable that even the womenfolk would physically and actively be involved to get an accused freed from the custody of the police when there were other male members present. Learned A.P.P. submits that the petitioners, though being named in the F.I.R., have moved the Court after almost 9 years, for anticipatory bail which itself shows their conduct as they have tried to evade the due process of law for a long period. It is further submitted that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 have criminal antecedent also.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed However, in the event the petitioners surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the present order.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U T