Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54277/2019dismissed

Muntasir v. The State Of Bihar

2019-08-29Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54277 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. DistrictAraria ====================================================== MUNTASIR, male, aged about 27 years, Son of Raquib Resident of VillageBelwa Patkan tola, Ward No.10, P.S. and District-Araria. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 29-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 447, 341, 323, 307, 354(B), 504, 506, 315/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the backdrop of land dispute. There is inordinate delay in institution of the F.I.R. on 16.03.2019 for the alleged occurrence of 20.02.2019. There is no injury report on record to corroborate the accusation of assault causing miscarriage. Other co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 04.07.2019 in Cr. Misc. No. 41185 of 2019. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54277 of 2019(2) dt.29-08-2019 2/2

4. Learned APP opposes the petition, submitting that there is specific accusation of assault attributed to the petitioner and of causing miscarriage. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge discloses that in her deposition recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. the informant has supported the prosecution case. Learned APP submits that the case of the petitioner does not stand on similar footing as that of co-accused who has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar/BT U T