Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8078/2024dismissed

Meraj Khan @ Md. Meraj Khan @ Md. Merajul Haque Khan v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-22Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8078 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2022 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Meraj Khan @ Md. Meraj Khan @ Md. Merajul Haque Khan SON OF MD. NATHUNI KHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JHAKHAR KHAN TOLA , WARD NO. 04, POST- MARPA TAHIR, PS- BAIRGANIA, DISTTSITAMARHI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Avinava Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Baigania P.S. Case No. 59 of 2022 registered for the offence under Section 376D, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have tried to commit rape upon the victim girl.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case.

5. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in jail since 2.10.2023.

6. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8078 of 2024(2) dt.22-02-2024 2/2 for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail by contending that materials have come against the petitioner and the petitioner has suppressed his criminal antecedents as there are five cases registered against the petitioner but, in paragraph 3 of the bail petition the same has been mentioned as three.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

9. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest. If there is no sufficient progress in the trial due to the fault of the prosecution side then the petitioner may renew his prayer for grant of bail.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U T