Patna High CourtCR. MISC./12379/2024bail rejected

Md. Sonu Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-19Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12379 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2023 Thana- RAHIKA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Md. Sonu Alam Son of Md. Shaukat Ali R/o vill - Jamalpur, P.S. - Kathaiya, Distt - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 19-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for an offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 412, 414, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120(b) of the IPC and Sections 25(1B)A, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, some miscreants have looted the Canara Bank by making firearm injury and this case is regarding bank dacoity.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner is in custody since 11.10.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12379 of 2024(3) dt.19-04-2024 2/2 regular bail of the petitioner.

6. On perusal of the first information report, case diary and impugned order dated 15.01.2024, it appears that this is a case of bank dacoity and petitioner and one co-accused Md. Aftab Ali were arrested at spot and one country made pistol and one live cartridge with one Vivo brand mobile were recovered from their possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated co-accused Hani Raj has been granted bail by this Court but the said co-accused was not arrested at the spot and no recovery from his possession and petitioner has also one criminal antecedent of the same nature of the alleged offence, so considering all the aspects of the material, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

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