Faizan Ibrahim @ Faizan Ali v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56568 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-459 Year-2019 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
FAIZAN IBRAHIM @ FAIZAN ALI Son of Ibrahim @ Ibrahim Khan Resident of Mohalla- Chawar Takiya, P.S.- Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas. 2.
Saiyad Nabab @ Saiyad Nabab Ahamad Son of Saiyad Shakir Ahmad Resident of Mohalla- Shahjuman, P.S.- Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Siddharth Harsh For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Rina Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 06-09-2019 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sasaram (Town) Police Station Case No. 459 of 2019, disclosing offences under Sections 406/420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation against the petitioners, as per the First Information Report, is that the petitioners took a sum of Rs. 65,000/- in cash from the informant on the pretext of sending the informant to foreign country (United Arab Emirates) and represented that his visa would be of two-years, but after going abroad, the informant came to know that his visa is valid only
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56568 of 2019(2) dt.06-09-2019 2/3 for one month and accordingly the informant returned to India. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case inasmuch as from perusal of Annexure-2 series, it would be apparent that the petitioners already reside in the United Arab Emirates for the last many years and have been working there as Store Keepers. He further submits that in fact, the informant inquired about going to United Arab Emirates for the purpose of work and the petitioners just informed the informant to meet some travel agent at Varanshi.
who arranged the travel of the informant to the United Arab Emirates and as per the procedure, initially a visa for one month was granted, which was to be extended further at the instance of the employer where the informant will work at United Arab Emirates. He further submits that in fact, the informant did not want to work in United Arab Emirates and insisted to return to India and accordingly he was sent by his travel agent through Behrain. He further submits that the alleged amount was given by the informant to the travel agent and not to the petitioners.
After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have already been working in United Arab Emirates and are not the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56568 of 2019(2) dt.06-09-2019 3/3 travel agent, I am inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, this application is allowed.
Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, at Sasaram, in connection with Sasaram (Town) Police Station Case No. 459 of 2019, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is subject to the condition that the petitioners shall present themselves before the police/Court, as the case may be, as and when required and in the event of failure on their part to appear before the Court on two consecutive occasions, their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √