Md.Guddu Ansari And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22335 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2165 Year- 2016 Thana -KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictKATIHAR ======================================================

1. Md. Guddu Ansari,

2. Kalam Ansari, Both Sons of Late Gulmohammad Ansari, resident of Village Mahadbad (Mohabhat Bhag) Ward No. 11, P.S. & DistrictAraria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sahjan Khatoon, W/o Md. Rahim, resident of Village- Kajipura, Kumar Tola, P.S.- Aazamnagar, District Katihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 06-07-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the complainant.

In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with C.A. No. 2165 of 2016 for the offence punishable under section 365 of the I.P.C. Allegedly, the petitioners took away the husband of the complainant for doing the work of labour in construction of a house on assurance to give Rs. 6,000/- per month besides breakfast, lunch an dinner and considering the assurance of the petitioners the husband of the complainant went with them and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22335 of 2017 (3) dt.06-07-2017 2/2 only Rs. 1,000/- advance was given and thereafter no amount was given and further there is no trace of husband of the complainant. Submission is of false implication and that only on suspicion the petitioners have been implicated, there is no cogent and legal material against the petitioners, it appears that husband of the complainant has gone with his own will and at present where he is, is not known, the complainant has filed this false case only with a view to harass the petitioners and as such the petitioners deserve sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant seriously opposes prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners by submitting that husband of the complainant is still traceless and the petitioners are not giving any clue to her.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to them and according their such prayer stands rejected in connection with the aforementioned case pending in the court of A.C.J.M-VI, Katihar. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T