Md. Jainul @ Md. Jainul Avedin @ Jainul Avedin v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33890 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -80 Year- 2016 Thana -GHOGHARDIHA District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Md. Jainul @ Md. Jainul Avedin @ Jainul Avedin, Son of Abdus Sattar, Resident of village- Belhi, P.S.- Marauna, District- Supaul. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Abhay Kumar Roy, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 12-06-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking regular bail in connection with Ghoghardiha P.S. Case No.80 of 2016 registered for offences alleged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of this petitioner has transpired in the confessional statement of one Md. Ismile. This petitioner is said to be in custody since 30.10.2017, however, till date no T.I. Parade has been conducted to establish the identity of this petitioner and his involvement in the present case. It is submitted that no incriminating material has been found in possession of the petitioner and nothing has been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33890 of 2018 (2) dt.12-06-2018 recovered from him. Learned counsel submits that even though the petitioner is named in two other cases, however, in those cases he is on bail. It is the submission of learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on the basis of confessional statement which police extracted by applying coercive methods. Learned A.P.P. for the State is present and has opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case whereunder the petitioner is said to be in custody since 30.10.2017 and till date there is no T.I. Parade to establish the identity of the petitioner and that nothing has been recovered from his possession, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M.

Jhanjharpur, Madhubani, in connection with Ghoghardiha P.S. Case No. 80 of 2016, subject to the conditions under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- U T