Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17442/2017rejected

Ibrahim v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-07-17Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17442 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -12 Year- 2017 Thana -PRANPUR District- KATIHAR ====================================================== Ibrahim Son of Naushad Ali Resident of Village-Kewala, P.S. Pranpur, District Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Junior Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Section, Pranpur, Katihar.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Pranpur P.S. Case No. 12 of 2017, registered under Sections 341, 323, 353, 504, 506 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the A.C.J.M-I, Katihar. The accusation is that on 02.02.2017 at 12.00 P.M. some miscreants reached at the electric power sub-station and confined the officials. Thereafter, informant being the Junior Engineer was called by them then he informed the matter to the Assistant Engineer, when the informant reached there with Assistant Engineer, petitioner and other named persons of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17442 of 2017 (4) dt.17-07-2017 2/2 F.I.R. assaulted the informant and tried to throw him in the fire anyhow the informant was saved.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from the F.I.R. that no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner and only general and omnibus allegation has been leveled against the petitioner and other accused.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T