Ibrar @ Bablu @ Md. Ibrar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.838 of 2017 ======================================================
1. Ibrar @ Bablu @ Md. Ibrar, S/o Yasin @ Md. Yasin,
2. Anjum, W/o Yasin @ Md. Yasin,
3. Yasin @ Md. Yasin, S/o Late Ahmad,
4. Aslam @ Md. Aslam, S/o Sadrul @ Md. Sadrul,
5. Abrar @ Akbar, S/o Istiyaque @ Iftakhar,
6. Ruby, D/o Yasin @ Md. Yasin, W/o Abrar @ Akbar,
7. Naznine @ Chunni, W/o Ibrar @ Bablu @ Md. Ibrar, All resident of Village- Bisariya, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Md. Naushad Uzzoha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. S. Ehteshamuddin (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 147 of 2016, registered for the offence punishable under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegedly, Gulesa Khatoon the daughter of the informant was married with Md. Ibrar @ Bablu (petitioner no.1) two years ago and it was learnt that the petitioners made Gulesa Khaton and grand-son Md. Arif traceless with an intention to kill them and in the night they have taken something on three
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.838 of 2017 (3) dt.30-01-2017 2/2 motorcycles which was seen by some fisherman and, as such, it appears that Gulesa Khatoon and Md. Arif might have been killed by the petitioners and their dead body have been made traceless. Submission is of false implication and that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence Gulesa Khatoon was in habit to marry one after another, her behavior was not very good, it appears that she might have fled away with a view to marry with another man and the petitioners have been falsely implicated. The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail by submitting that there is serious allegation against the petitioners.
In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering that during investigation also the allegations have been supported by the witnesses and, as such, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to them and accordingly their such prayer stands rejected in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 147 of 2016, pending in the Court of Sri Kumar Amit Manu, learned A.C.J.M.-II, Araria.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T