Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16179/2023rejected

Md. Irfan @ Irfan Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2023-05-10Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16179 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2019 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Md. Irfan @ Irfan Alam Son of Md. Asad @ Azad Miyan R/V- Parauli, P.SBasantpur Distt- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kumari Anupam, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 10-05-2023 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 162 of 2019 dated 02.07.2019 lodged under Sections 392 of the I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against 3 unknown accused persons against whom the allegation of snatching of mobile and cash as well as vehicle is there.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and by virtue of confessional statement of co-accused from whose possession the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16179 of 2023(2) dt.10-05-2023 2/2 mobile has been recovered, petitioner's name figured in this case.

Counsel further submits that there are six antecedent of the petitioner and he is in custody since 14.01.2020. Counsel also submits that the case has been lodged under Section 392 of I.P.C. which is magisterial triable in nature. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are 6 criminal cases pending against the petitioner which is of similar nature.

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail 3 months after framing of charge.

With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) prakashmani/- U T