Dismissed

Md. Nasim v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC9 Apr 2014CR. MISC./10029/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partial criminal miscellaneous order dismissing a petition to quash orders rejecting a Section 205 Cr.P.C. application. The Court refused to interfere despite the petitioner's absence abroad, directing the trial court to consider the WC later upon appearance and bail grant.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. dismissed; Court directed to consider Section 317 Cr.P.C. after bail is granted in trial.

Md. Nasim Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10029 of 2014

¶3

====================================================== Md. Nasim .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 09-04-2014 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, in Cr. Rev. No. 242 of 2013 affirming the order dated 01.05.2013 passed by the learned J.M., Ist Class, Chapra in Complaint Case No. 702 of 2012 whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 205 of Cr. P. C. has been rejected. The prosecution case is that on 14.03.2012 at 7.00 A.M., all the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner fired with pistol though no injury was caused and other accused persons assaulted with fists and slaps. Processes were directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 379 of the I.P.C.

¶4

The application under Section 205 of Cr.

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10029 of 2014 (2) dt.09-04-2014

¶6

2 / 2

¶7

P.C. was filed before the learned court below on the

¶8

ground that the petitioner is employed abroad.

¶9

It appears that complaint was filed on
15.03.2012 and consequently processes were directed
to be issued. Three co-accused have already appeared
and have been granted bail but due to non-appearance
of the petitioner warrant of arrest has been issued
against the petitioner. Obviously the petitioner
left the country after the occurrence without taking
bail.

¶10

In the circumstances, this Court is not
inclined to interfere. However, after appearance of
petitioner and grant of bail during trial the
learned court below may consider the application
under Section 317 of Cr. P.C. in view of the fact
that the petitioner is employed abroad.

¶11

With the aforesaid observation, the
application is disposed off.

¶12

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)

¶13

U.K./-

Md. Nasim v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Nasim v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Raj Kumar and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Tanveer Alam @ Md. Tanweer Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Anand Sharma and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Sukhdeo Rai Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Hari Lal Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Tarak Nath Manna Vs The State Of Bihar Through C.b.i.