Md. Ayub @ Saijab Mansoori@ Saujum Mansoori @ Saujab Mansoori v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53713 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2021 Thana- BELA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.

MD. AYUB @ SAIJAB MANSOORI@ SAUJUM MANSOORI @ SAUJAB MANSOORI SON OF AMAR ALI MANSOORI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NARGAN, PS- BELA, DISTT- SITAMARHI 2.

KAIJUM MANSOORI @ KAIZUB MANSOORI SON OF AMAR ALI MANSOORI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NARGAN, PS- BELA, DISTTSITAMARHI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hans Lal Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha, APP For the Informant :

Mr.Parwej Khan, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 25-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. 2.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Bela P.S. Case No.180/2021, registered for the offence punishable u/s 341, 323, 379, 376/34 of the IPC.

3.

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner no.2 is alleged to have blackmailed the informant for making her obscene photographs viral and it is further alleged that the petitioners assaulted her when she made complain of the blackmailing. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53713 of 2023(2) dt.25-08-2023 2/2 They have been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. It is submitted that earlier the brother of the petitioners has filed a case against the father of the informant, thereafter, the present case has been filed by the informant. Petitioners have one criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected. 7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

8.

However, petitioners are at liberty to surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order, preferably, on the same day, in accordance with law. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T