Allowed

Abdul Motalib v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Jun 2020CR. MISC./10558/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing arrest for theft, noting existence of a counter-case and lack of recovered evidence. Bail ordered subject to conditions and lockdown guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of like amount, subject to lockdown guidelines and Section 438(2) CrPC.

Abdul Motalib Vs the State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10558 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1432 Year-2017 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- West Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Abdul Motalib, aged about 33 years, Male

¶5

Abutalib, aged about 31 years, Male

¶6

Both are S/O Late Sk. Tufelehan, Resident of Village Jhumka, P.S.- Sikta, District – West Champaran

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Bihar

¶10

Sheikh Hamdullah, aged about 64, Male, S/O Late Sheikh Ehasn, R/O Village- Jhumka, P.S. Sikta, District West Champaran

¶11

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 24-06-2020

¶14

Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel

¶15

for the petitioners and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Khare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State through video conferencing.

¶16

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1432C of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 379, 451 of the I.P.C.

¶17

The allegation as per the complaint lodged by complainant -Sheikh Hamdullah who had initially lodged Sikta P.S. Case No. 105 of 2016 registered under Section 452, 379, 504/34 of the I.P.C. stating therein that the petitioners along with other accused persons entered into the house of the

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10558 of 2020(2) dt.24-06-2020 2/3

¶19

informant and committed theft of ornaments, cash etc. The Police after investigation submitted final form in Sikta P.S. Case No. 105 of 2016 not sending the petitioners for trial. However, a protest -cum- complaint petition was filed by the complainant / informant in which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 379, 451 of I.P.C. vide order dated 03.07.2018.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case as a counter blast to Sikta P.S. Case No. 104 of 2016 lodged by petitioner no. 1 against the complainant – Opposite Party No. 2. Learned counsel further submits that no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners and the present protest- cum- complaint petition has been filed as a counter blast to Sikta P.S. Case No. 104 of 2016 lodged by the side of the petitioners.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is case and counter case between the parties and no stolen property has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶22

Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from today, petitioners, above

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10558 of 2020(2) dt.24-06-2020 3/3

¶24

named, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Shree Raj Kapoor, learned J.M. 1^st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Complaint Case No. 1432C of 2017, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

It is made clear that at the time of furnishing bail bonds all the parties shall follow the guidelines regarding lockdown and social distancing.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶27

praful/-

¶28

U T

Abdul Motalib v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Motalib 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

Sukdeo Yadav @ Sukhdeo Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Dikesh Manjhi @ Vikesh Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Shyam Sundar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Rai Vs the State of Bihar

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Shankar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Karan Chauhan @ Karan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar