Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16208/2017rejected

Md. Abu v. The State Of Bihar

2017-04-27Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16208 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -244 Year- 2015 Thana -POTHIYA District- KISANGANJ ====================================================== Md. Abu, Son of Hakimuddin, Resident of Village Guwabari Tin Mile, P.S. Chopra, Distt. Uttar Dinajpur (W.B.) .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Firoz Ahmad, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 27-04-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Pothia P.S. Case No. 244 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that his son-in-law Lal Mian took his daughter Rubi Begum on the pretext to look after his another daughter Rukaiya Begum, the wife of Lal Mian. On the next day, the informant enquired from Rukaiya Begum, who disclosed that Rubi Begum did not come to her house and she was well. On the next day, the dead body of Ruby Begum was found on a railway track for which UD Case was registered. The informant alleged that Lal Mian and the petitioner committed rape with his daughter Ruby Begum and killed her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nobody

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16208 of 2017 (2) dt.27-04-2017 2/2 has seen that the petitioner moving along with Lal Mian and Rubi Begum but, it appears that the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was also found in the company of Lal Mian and the accused persons firstly committed rape with the victim and thereafter, killed her and threw her dead body on a railway track. Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T