Md. Rashid @ Md. Rashid Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51308 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1739 Year-2018 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

Md. Rashid @ Md. Rashid Alam-M, Age - 25 years, son of Md. Ishahaque @ Md. Ishaque.

2.

Md. Ishahaque @ Md. Ishaque-M-50 son of late Doman 3.

Bibi Sabana @ Bibi Rounaque @ Rounaque-F-38 years wife of Muntasir 4.

Ekram @ Md. Ekram-M, Age-55 years son of Naful. All are residents of Village Samda, ward no. 5, Bansbari Police Station and District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Bibi Sagupta Daughter of Ismail resident of village Samda, Post Office Bansbari, ward no. 5, P.S. and District Araria. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rama Nand Poddar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the informant : Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the complainant.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1739- C of 2018, registered for the offence punishable under Section 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioners as per complaint is that petitioner no. 1 along with other accused persons tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that complainant is the neighbour of petitioner no. 3 and there appears to be love affair between the complainant and petitioner no. 1. Learned counsel further submits that the present

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51308 of 2019(3) dt.16-11-2019 2/2 complaint has been filed with oblique motive in order to pressurize the petitioner no. 1 to perform marriage with the complainant.

On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioner no. 1 tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant.

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner nos. 1, 3 and complainant are neighbours and as per the complaint, complainant used to talk to petitioner no. 1 regularly, as such, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, the order dated 20.08.2019 whereby provisional bail was granted to the above named petitioners is hereby confirmed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T