Khurshid Siddiqui v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2875 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2020 Thana- RIGA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Khurshid Siddiqui, aged about 31 years, Gender- Male, S/o- Satar Siddiki @ Sattar Siddiqui @ Santar Siddiqui, Resident of Villager- Berbas Ward No. 7, P.S.- Dumra, Dist- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Anita Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegations in the FIR, while the informant was proceeding to Sitamarhi on his motorcycle, two unknown persons on the gunpoint looted a sum of Rs.3,50,00/- from him and thereafter they fled away from the place of occurrence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to pressure by police. He further submits there is no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Moreover, the alleged motorcycle which was used in the said crime is still not traced and as per the seizure list, the motorcycle recovered by the police is petitioner's personal motorcycle, which was not used in the alleged crime and this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2875 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 2/2 fact is evident from perusal of seizure list and FIR. He further submits that the petitioner is not even named in the FIR rather his name appeared only on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that no TIP has been conducted by the officials till now. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition and he is in custody since 19.10.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for the bail of the petitioner.

6. On perusal of FIR, seizure list dated 18.10.2025 and impugned order dated 24.12.2025, it appears that petitioner is not named in the FIR and neither there is any recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner nor the alleged motorcycle from which the crime has been committed belongs to the petitioner, so let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM-VI, Sitamarhi in connection with Riga P.S. Case no.- 170 of 2020.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T