{"id":14056,"date":"2011-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011"},"modified":"2018-06-04T12:38:13","modified_gmt":"2018-06-04T07:08:13","slug":"md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011<\/div>\n
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                                     CR. REV. No.1431 of 2009\n                  Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain, son of Late Mubarak Hussain,\n                  resident of village-Gaina, P.S.-Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga.\n                                                                  .........Petitioner\n                                                  Versus\n                                           The State of Bihar\n                                                              .........Opposite Party\n                                                -----------\n<\/pre>\n
2.   21.10.2011             The accused petitioner has preferred this revision<\/p>\n
                      application against the order dated 31.07.2009 passed by<\/p>\n
                      the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in<\/p>\n
                      S.T.No.271\/2007 arising out of Manigachhi P.S. Case<\/p>\n
                      No.30\/2007 under Sections 302 and 448 of the I.P.C. by<\/p>\n
                      which the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution under<\/p>\n
                      Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner<\/p>\n
                      has been directed to appear before the court to face the<\/p>\n
                      trial as an additional accused in this case.<\/p>\n
                            The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.03.2007<\/p>\n
                      Sobaida Khatoon (informant), the mother of the deceased<\/p>\n
                      Sultana Khatoon gave a written statement to the officer-in-<\/p>\n
                      charge of Manigachhi police station alleging therein that<\/p>\n
                      on that day at about 6.30 A.M., the accused Md. Naushad<\/p>\n
                      had entered into her house and tied the neck of her<\/p>\n
                      daughter Sultana Khatoon aged about 18 years with a<\/p>\n
                      plastic rope, which caused her death. The informant raised
\n                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
alarm, the co-villagers Md. Ahsan, Md. Ahmad and other<\/p>\n
co-villagers male and female came there and saw the<\/p>\n
occurrence. After the death of Sultana Khatoon, Naushad<\/p>\n
hanged the dead body from the roof of her house. On the<\/p>\n
statement of the informant, Manigachhi P.S. Case<\/p>\n
No.30\/2007 was instituted under Sections 302 and 448 of<\/p>\n
the I.P.C., which was instituted against the sole accused<\/p>\n
Md. Naushad. After investigation, the police submitted<\/p>\n
charge-sheet against him. The case was committed to the<\/p>\n
court of sessions for trial. After examination of 12<\/p>\n
witnesses, a petition was filed under Section 319 of the<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. on behalf of the prosecution on 9.04.2009 with a<\/p>\n
prayer to issue summon against the petitioner to face the<\/p>\n
trial which has been allowed by the learned 2 nd Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge vide the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that<\/p>\n
the petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R. nor his name<\/p>\n
has ever transpired during the entire investigation till the<\/p>\n
submission of charge-sheet. As a matter of fact, out of 11<\/p>\n
witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1<\/p>\n
Md. Ahsan, P.W.9 Akramul Haque and P.W.10 Sobaida<\/p>\n
Khatoon are the close family members of the deceased,
\n                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
who have purposely and knowingly taken the name of the<\/p>\n
petitioner as participant in the alleged occurrence by<\/p>\n
making an improvement apart from the matter stated in the<\/p>\n
F.I.R. only to use and humiliate the petitioner. The<\/p>\n
petitioner used to live in Saudi Arbia (Jeddah) for doing<\/p>\n
his job and on the last visit of his house, the prosecution<\/p>\n
party has threatened to implicate him also in the present<\/p>\n
case for which the petitioner had filed an Informatory<\/p>\n
Petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on<\/p>\n
31.07.2008 much prior to the examination of P.W.9 and<\/p>\n
P.W.10. P.W.10 is the informant. P.W.9 is her husband<\/p>\n
and P.W.1 is the brother of P.W.9. They are highly<\/p>\n
interested having enmity with the petitioner and as such,<\/p>\n
no reliance can be placed on their evidence.<\/p>\n
       He has further submitted that the 2nd Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge should have held that the prosecution has<\/p>\n
filed the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at a belated<\/p>\n
stage, which could not be maintainable. Out of 12 charge-<\/p>\n
sheet witnesses, 11 witnesses including the I.O. have been<\/p>\n
examined and the trial is in the last phase. P.W.1 is not<\/p>\n
even a charge-sheet witness nor his statement was<\/p>\n
recorded by the police during investigation. The defence
\n                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
has not got any opportunity to cross-examine him rather<\/p>\n
without any question being put to him by the defence side;<\/p>\n
he was discharged and as such, due to non-cross-<\/p>\n
examination of P.W.1, the case of the petitioner has been<\/p>\n
highly prejudiced. The evidence of these witnesses is not<\/p>\n
reliable and should have been disbelieved.<\/p>\n
              In support of his contention, he has referred the<\/p>\n
following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
      (i)       Md. Sajid Hussain @ Md. Sajeed Vs. State of
\n                Bihar and Ors. reported in 2010 (4) BBCJ
\n                312.<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)      Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Anr. Vs. State of
\n                Jharkhand reported in (2009) 2 Supreme
\n                Court Cases 696.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (iii)     Michael Machado & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau
\n                of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2000) 3
\n                Supreme Court Cases 262.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The learned counsel for the State has submitted that<\/p>\n
P.W.1 and P.W.10 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence,<\/p>\n
who have fully supported the case that on the date of<\/p>\n
occurrence Naushad and his father Akhtar Hussain<\/p>\n
(petitioner) both had entered into courtyard of the<\/p>\n
informant, Subiada Khatoon and secondly, both had tied<\/p>\n
the         neck   of   her   daughter   Sultana   Khatoon and<\/p>\n
subsequently, she died by tying the rope in her neck and<\/p>\n
stress by them, besides the other witnesses P.W.9 Akramul
\n                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
Haque is the husband of the informant and he has<\/p>\n
supported the case as an hearsay witness. The other<\/p>\n
material witnesses are hostile. The name of the petitioner<\/p>\n
never came in the charge-sheet nor his name was sent up<\/p>\n
for trial. The prosecution has filed a petition for<\/p>\n
summoning the petitioner after getting the evidence<\/p>\n
against him. It cannot be said that this petitioner has been<\/p>\n
filed at a belated stage. The decisions cited on behalf of<\/p>\n
the petitioners are not applicable in the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of this case.\n<\/p>\n
      After hearing the learned counsel for both the<\/p>\n
parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears<\/p>\n
that prior to the examination of the informant (P.W.10)<\/p>\n
except P.W.1 Md. Ahsan and P.W.9 Ekramun Hussain, all<\/p>\n
the witnesses are hostile. Therefore, there was no occasion<\/p>\n
to the prosecution to file the aforesaid petition at the early<\/p>\n
stage. According to the P.W.1, he is the eye witness to the<\/p>\n
occurrence. P.W.9 is the husband of the informant. He was<\/p>\n
doing work at Mumbai. There was no male member in the<\/p>\n
house of the informant. The informant and her daughter<\/p>\n
were residing in the house. P.W.9 came from Mumbai and<\/p>\n
the occurrence was informed to him by his wife.
\n                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
Accordingly, he has given the evidence before the court<\/p>\n
and he is not an eye witness, but his evidence stands on the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W.10 and the evidence of these two<\/p>\n
witnesses are consistent. P.W.1 is not a charge-sheet<\/p>\n
witness, but he has supported the prosecution case as an<\/p>\n
eye witness. P.W.11 (I.O.) has recovered a plastic thread<\/p>\n
and a pair of sleeper from the house of the informant. The<\/p>\n
witnesses examined by the I.O. during the investigation<\/p>\n
have been declared hostile by the prosecution in trial.<\/p>\n
Those witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case<\/p>\n
before the police, but in the course of trial, they have<\/p>\n
denied the main facts of the case. After considering all<\/p>\n
these facts, the learned trial court has found that there is<\/p>\n
prima facie material against the petitioner to summon him<\/p>\n
to face the trial.\n<\/p>\n
       In the case of Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh (supra), it<\/p>\n
has been held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is<\/p>\n
required    to   be       exercised   very   sparingly.   Before<\/p>\n
summoning, the trial court must form an opinion on the<\/p>\n
basis of evidence brought before it that a case has been<\/p>\n
made out that such person could be tried together with the<\/p>\n
other accused. In that case, the trial court has relied on the
\n                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7, who were not the eye<\/p>\n
witnesses. P.W.6 was not an eye witness to the occurrence<\/p>\n
and P.W.7 was only a hearsay witness. Therefore, it was<\/p>\n
held that no evidence worth the name was brought on the<\/p>\n
record to arrive at a satisfaction that there was a reasonable<\/p>\n
prospect of conviction of the appellants. But in this case,<\/p>\n
P.W.1 and P.W.10 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence<\/p>\n
and P.W.9 is a hearsay witness, who has supported the<\/p>\n
prosecution case as P.W.9 corroborating her evidence.<\/p>\n
Therefore, this decision does not help the petitioner.<\/p>\n
      In the case of Md. Sajid Hussain @ Md. Sajeed<\/p>\n
(Supra), it has been held that the discretion under Section<\/p>\n
319 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly with<\/p>\n
caution and only when the concerned court is satisfied that<\/p>\n
some offence has been committed by such person that<\/p>\n
petitioner has also been dismissed on the ground that there<\/p>\n
was material before the court for issuing summon under<\/p>\n
Section 319 Cr.P.C. In this circumstance, this decision is<\/p>\n
also not helpful to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      In the case of Michael Machado & Anr. (Supra),<\/p>\n
it has been held that 49 witnesses had been examined by<\/p>\n
the Magistrate and none has made any allegation against
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
              the accused only the 3 remaining witnesses had made<\/p>\n
              reference about the role of the accused in the offence and<\/p>\n
              in that case it was held that the evidence was insufficient<\/p>\n
              to make out the case against the appellants and it was held<\/p>\n
              that there was no justification for proceeding against the<\/p>\n
              appellants by recommending entire trial afresh. In my<\/p>\n
              humble opinion, this decision is also not helpful to the<\/p>\n
              petitioner in the facts and circumstances stated above.<\/p>\n
                    For the reasons stated above, I do not find any<\/p>\n
              ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition<\/p>\n
              is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
V.K. Pandey                         ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1431 of 2009 Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain, son of Late Mubarak Hussain, resident of village-Gaina, P.S.-Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga. ………Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ………Opposite Party […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14056","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nMd. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-04T07:08:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-04T07:08:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1537,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-04T07:08:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-04T07:08:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-04T07:08:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011"},"wordCount":1537,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011","name":"Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-04T07:08:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-akhtar-akhtar-hussain-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Md. Akhtar @ Akhtar Hussain vs State Of Bihar on 21 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14056","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14056\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}