Dismissed

Md. Mumtaz v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC25 May 2016CR. MISC./17945/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail in a Section 304(B) IPC suicide case. The petitioner argued that independent witness statements were not recorded. The Court found the application unmeritorious due to the serious nature of allegations, and dismissed it without granting the requested relief.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed.

Md. Mumtaz Vs The State Of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17945 of 2016 (3) dt.25-05-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17945 of 2016

¶4

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -126 Year- 2015 Thana -PATORI District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Md. Mumtaz Son of Md. Ajim Resident of village - Iman Sharai, P.S. - Patori, District - Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ebrahim Kabir. Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Pronati Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 3 25-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Patori PS case no. 126/2015 registered for offences punishable under Sections 328, 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that his wife has committed suicide and during the course of investigation, the statements of independent witnesses were not recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Villagers have given a representation to the Superintendent of Police stating the aforesaid fact of committing suicide by the deceased.

¶6

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17945 of 2016 (3) dt.25-05-2016

¶7

Per contra , learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that it does not appear from Annexure-2 as to whom it has been addressed as the relevant column is blank. There is no receiving also on the document. It is further contended that petitioner is husband and death has occurred within one and half years of marriage.

¶8

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to him. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

¶9

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)

¶10

rinkee/ravi

¶11

U T

Md. Mumtaz v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Mumtaz v. The State Of Bihar

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

Ram Keshwar Kewat and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Rajeshwar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Tuntun Mandal Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Samad @ Md. Samod and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Rakesh Yadav and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Mohan Chandra Sah Vs The State Of Bihar