Dismissed

Ali Hussain and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC16 May 2019CR. MISC./4594/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court rejected a petition for discharge filed under Section 239/240 CrPC. The petitioners had raised the plea that one was not sent up for trial and another had divorced the informant. The Court held that the lower court had found a prima facie case and thus no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The instant petition for discharge is rejected and the impugned order is left unaltered.

Ali Hussain and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4594 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2014 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Ali Hussain

¶5

Nezamuddin @ Nezamuddin Ansari

¶6

Hafiz @ Md. Hafiz Ansari all the three sons of late Kabedin Ansari resident of Mohalla Azadnagar, Tikri Road, PS-Aurangabad, Distt-Aurangabad.

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Bihar

¶10

Smt. Zahida Khatoon wife of Sri Nezamuddin resident of Village-Serajpur PS Nabinagar, Distt-Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶11

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sushil Kumar Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 16-05-2019

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

¶15

learned APP.

¶16

This matter relates to a prayer purported to be under Section 239/240 CrPC.

¶17

There happens to be submission at the end of the petitioners that petitioners no.1 and 3 were not sent up for trial while petitioner no.2, as is evident from the order impugned as disclosed, by the petitioner no.2, had divorced the informant on 26.03.2014. The informant had admitted the factum of divorce but, exact date is under mark of question.

¶18

In the aforesaid background, the order impugned is fit to be set aside by way of allowing the discharge of the petitioners.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4594 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2019 2/2

¶20

Learned APP opposed the prayer.

¶21

It happens to be a case amongst the spouses. Be that

¶22

as it may, from the order impugned, it is evident that after going through the case diary, learned lower court has found a prima facie case subsisting against the petitioners whereupon, the prayer has been rejected. It is needless to say, as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander as reported in (2012)9 SCC 460, that at the time of framing of charge, the materials to be appreciated happens to be weaker than the prima facie case.

¶23

That being so, the order impugned needs no interference. Accordingly, instant petition is rejected.

¶24

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

¶25

perwez

¶26

U T

Ali Hussain and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Hussain and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjay Kumar @ Dharmendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nikesh Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Vishwanath Mahto @ Bishwanath Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar

Munni Kumari and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Mahto Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Jha @ Sanjay Jha and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar