Md. Jahid v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63468 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2019 Thana- KRITYANAND NAGAR DistrictPurnia ====================================================== 1.

MD. JAHID Son of Abdul Samar @ Abdul Samar Resident of Rampur, P.S.- K.Nagar (Champa Nagar), District-Purnea.

2.

Nahid Parwin @ Bibi Nahid Wife of Md. Jahid Resident of Rampur, P.S.- K.Nagar (Champa Nagar), District-Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bijendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 16-06-2020 The present petition has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.

This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with K.Nagar (Champa Nagar) P.S. Case No. 192 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 436 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation is regarding the petitioners having set the house of the informant on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63468 of 2019(3) dt.16-06-2020 2/2 3.6.2019 at about 6:30 PM. resulting in burning of several articles and the same being reduced to ashes. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent, they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they are having clean antecedent. It is further submitted that there is no material in the case diary to show the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged crime. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the materials available in the case diary, this Court is of the opinion that there are ample materials in the case diary to suggest the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged crime, hence, I do not find the present case to be a fit case to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, thus, the present petition stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U T