Md. Imteyaz Ahmad v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40829 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -4036 Year- 2017 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Son of Late Tauheed Hasan, Resident of Chhatwan, Ward No.8, P.S.- Keoti, District- Darbhanga.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Saifullah Jawed, Son of Abul Kalam, Resident of Subzibagh Jamun Gali, P.S.- Peerbahore, District- Patna.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate. For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Advocate Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. C-4036 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Sections 323, 370, 372, 493 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that sister of the informant was married with the petitioner about 15 years back according to Muslim rites and rituals. She gave birth to four children. It is further alleged that petitioner developed illicit relationship with one Nasrin Khatoon. Petitioner started committing torture with the sister of the informant. The accused persons made his sister ill by giving

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40829 of 2018 (2) dt.17-07-2018 2/2 wrong medicines, on account of which, she became very weak and was brought back by the informant to her Maikey where she died. It is also alleged that petitioner took four children with him and was found talking with tout to take them to Kolkata for selling. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that statement of children have been recorded during enquiry wherein they have stated that petitioner was talking with tout to sell them for illegal purpose.

Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that process under Section 82 Cr. P.C. has already been issued against the petitioner.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

Petitioner may surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail which will be disposed off by the court below in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T