Md. Tahir Hussain @ Tahir Husain And ANR v. The State Of Bihar ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7672 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-917 Year-2017 Thana- SIWAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSiwan ====================================================== 1.

Md. Tahir Hussain @ Tahir Husain, Son of Ganni Ansari, resident of Village - Brahmsthan, P.S.- Bhagwanpur Hat, District - Siwan. 2.

Harun Rashid, Son of Rauf Ansari, Resident of Village - Hilsar, Ekawan Tola, P.S.- Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Parmatma Singh aged about 57 years Male S/o Nageshwar Singh R/o Maghar Tole Mahar Rai, P.S.- Bhagwanpur Hat, Distt.- Siwan ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Krishna Kant Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-04-2019 Heard Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of two petitioners and Sri Ram Sumiran Rai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Two petitioners, apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 917 of 2017 for the offence under Section 420, 468, 406, 471, 120B, 464, 467, 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have prayed for grant of bail in the event of their arrest or surrender.

Sri Singh, learned counsel for petitioners submits that both the petitioners had also invested money in the company in question even then petitioners have been made accused. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7672 of 2019(3) dt.04-04-2019 2/2 further submits that one of the accused in Mashrak P.S. Case No. 327 of 2017 has been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. However, he accepts that anticipatory bail in respect of petitioner no. 2 was rejected by this court itself. Sri Singh has argued that it appears that for the same transaction two cases have been lodged.

On going through the statement made in paragraph no. 3 of the petition it is evident that petitioners are also accused in an another case namely Mashrak P.S. Case No. 327 of 2017 registered for the offence under Section 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. This suggests that petitioners are accused in similar type of accusation in another case also.

Be that as it may, petitioners are accused besides the present case in an another case and as such there is no reason to entertain the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) praful/- U T