Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43087/2017disposed

Md. Tajmul And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-11-01Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43087 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Md. Tajmul son of Usman Ali

2. Md. Aajmul son of Usman Ali

3. Md. Idrish @ Eddan son of Abdul Aziz

4. Md. Aausan son of Abdul Hamid All are residents of village - Sulindabad, P.S. + District - Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Abdul Wahid son of Md. Tamizuddin, resident of village - Sulindabad, P.S. & District - Saharsa.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-11-2017

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The prayer of anticipatory bail of all the petitioners was rejected with a certain observation. On perusal of order dated 19.08.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39316 of 2017 it appears that there is an observation that the investigation remained pending for two decades.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that the matter was investigated and Police submitted Final Form on 31.01.1997, but after two decades of submission of final form the Court below took cognizance of offence against the petitioners on 23.01.2017. The petitioners have not filed certified

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43087 of 2017 (3) dt.01-11-2017 2/2 copy of F.I.R., but on going through the Fardbeyan annexed with this application, I find that the informant has disclosed the name of petitioner nos. 3 and 4 in his Fardbeyan. He has stated that they had allegedly taken toddy with the deceased and the deceased was administered with poisonous toddy. In protest petition, the informant has disclosed about the enmity between the petitioners and the deceased. Anticipatory bail of all the petitioners was rejected considering the above facts.

4. In view of above, I do not find any reason to reconsider their prayer of anticipatory bail which has been refused on 19.08.2017. The petitioners if surrender before the court below and pray for bail, the same shall be considered on merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

5. Accordingly, this application is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar, J) Mahesh/- U T