Patna High Court - Orders
Md. Afroz @ Md. Afroz Alam vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 December, 2013
Author: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Bench: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.25457 of 2011
======================================================
Md. Afroz @ Md. Afroz Alam, son of Late Haji Ismail R/O,Vill.-
Mahishakol, P.S. & Dist.-Araria
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Md.Nasimuddin, son of Late Haji Haroon R/O,Vill.-Mahishakol,P.S. &
Dist.-Araria
3. Md.Minhaj, son of Md.Nasimuddin R/O,Vill.-Mahishakol, P.S. &
Dist.-Araria
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Asoka Jang Bahadur &
Mr. Md. Rashid Alam, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
TRIVEDI
ORAL ORDER
3 06-12-2013Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 as well as learned Additional P.P.
2. Petitioner/complainant is aggrieved by an order dated 16.03.2011 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Araria in A.B.P.No.67 of 2011 whereby and whereunder allowed the prayer of the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 relating to anticipatory bail.
3. The main thrust of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner happens to be that the learned Lower Court while granting anticipatory bail in favour of Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25457 of 2011 (3) dt.06-12-2013 2 had taken into account pendency of a case launched at the behest of one of the accused on 12.12.2009. It has also been submitted that both the cases should have been dealt with in different way because of the fact that neither, both the cases are inter-connected nor the case instituted on 12.12.2009 by one of the accused has got any concern with the present case. Not only this, both the cases are not at all cross case to each other. It has also been submitted that the present case has been filed on account of kidnapping of minor child of complainant, namely, Md. Danish, who has still not been traced out. It has further been submitted that though the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance under Section 367/34 of the IPC but there happens to be disclosure with regard to demand of ransom to a tune of Rs.50,000/- as well as coercing the petitioner to change his evidence which he had deposed against the accused at an earlier occasion in connection with Sessions Trial No.488 of 2009. So, the ingredient with regard to constitution of an offence punishable under Section 364(A) of the IPC is also made out. That means to say on account of severity of the offence, the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 should not have been granted, at least anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 that from the complaint petition itself, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25457 of 2011 (3) dt.06-12-2013 3 it is apparent that parties are at longstanding inimical term whereunder series of cases are being fought against each other. It has also been submitted that had the conduct of the complainant been fair, then in that background, the complainant should have mentioned the fact regarding the occurrence committed by them on 12.12.2009 for which one of the petitioners had instituted a case. Concealing the aforesaid facts got this complaint case filed only to put pressure upon the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 to withdraw the case launched by them on 12.12.2009. Then had submitted that so alleged victim was/is along with the complainant himself, therefore, the question of kidnapping does not arise. Apart from this, it has also been submitted that having gone through Annexure-1A, the statement of the witnesses so examined under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., it is also apparent that some of the witnesses are directly inimical to the accused on account of having drawn cases against the accused or are an accused in a case launched by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3. It is also evident that in some of the cases complainant happens to be witnesses on their behalf and so they have come up to stand as a witness in this false case on behalf of petitioner/complainant. It has also been pleaded that had the story of kidnapping been true then why not complainant had taken recourse of Section 97 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25457 of 2011 (3) dt.06-12-2013 4 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that none of the P.W. including complainant had disclosed source by which ransom or threatening was being given by the petitioner.
5. After hearing rival contentions as well as going through the order impugned, it is found that the learned Lower Court had followed and exercised right approach while allowing the prayer.
6. In the aforesaid background, I do not see the prayer of the petitioner entertainable. Consequent thereupon, petition is rejected.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) B.Kr./-