Jainudin Ansari @ Jainuddin Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10469 of 2016 (3) dt.18-04-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10469 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -296 Year- 2015 Thana -RAMGARH District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ======================================================

1. Jainudin Ansari @ Jainuddin Ansari Son of Suleman Darjee, resident of Village- Baraura, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua). .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmesh Kumar Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renu Kumari(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the Sate.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 296 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354j, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the petitioner told the niece of the informant to commit rape with her and snatched her book and when protest was made then the petitioner gave knife blow in the abdomen of the brother of the informant causing serious injury and bleeding, resulting, the brother of the informant became senseless. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has also received injury vide annexure-2, the informant and his brother came in the house of the petitioner to assault him and then altercation took place, there was no intention to commit murder,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10469 of 2016 (3) dt.18-04-2016 the petitioner has not repeated the blow and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration to which learned APP seriously opposes by submitting that grievous injury has been found over abdomen of the injured Reyajuddin Miyan. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer of bail after remaining further six months in custody. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T