← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./70600/2024bail granted

Sikander Mistri (Sharma) @ Sikandar Sharma @ Sikandar Mistri v. The State Of Bihar

2025-02-28Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70600 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2024 Thana- Pothia District- Katihar ====================================================== Sikander Mistri (Sharma) @ Sikandar Sharma @ Sikandar Mistri Son of Late Hari Mistri Resident of Village- Tikapatti, PS- Tikapatti, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bimal Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Upendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-02-2025 Heard Mr.Bimal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Upendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pothia P.S. Case No. 04 of 2024,FIR dated 13.03.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 371 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to the prosecution case, the wife of informant was missing since 13.02.2024 and he learnt from friend and relative that one Sukma Devi has sold his wife to one Shailendra at the cost of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) and the informant suspects that Sukma Devi

2/4 and other co-accused persons are involved in human trafficking.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, only mobile number of the petitioner is mentioned in the FIR and he has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that he is husband of co-accused, namely, Sukma Devi and statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C/Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 in which she has not stated anything about the petitioner and nothing has come during investigation against the petitioner to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner has clean antecedent, he is not named in the FIR, victim has not stated anything about the petitioner in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C/Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 and petitioner has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that he is husband of co-accused, namely, Sukma

3/4 Devi, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Katihar in connection with Pothia P.S. Case No. 04 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:- (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(III) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his/her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U