Anul Khan @ Anul Miyan @ Ainul Khan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24586 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2011 Thana- TANDWA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== ANUL KHAN @ ANUL MIYAN @ AINUL KHAN Son of Late Bashruddin Khan R/V- Gamhariya Tole Ramnagar (Suryapura) P.O and P.S- Tandwa, Dist- Aurangabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 19-05-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case no. 33 of 2011 registered under sections 302, 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 27 of the Arms Act and sections 17(1)(2) of the CLA Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that Ramswaroop Yadav @ Kalika Ji and the petitioner herein who both belong to a Maoist group called his son and said that Sandip Ji had called him. Thereafter they had taken the informant's son along with them towards Hariharganj. When the informant's son did not return, the informant started to search for him and thereafter came to know that his son's dead body was found near Gajna dham.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24586 of 2023(2) dt.19-05-2023 2/2

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. At best the case against the petitioner is of last seen. The petitioner is in custody since 22.2.2022 and charge sheet has been submitted in the case. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial. With respect to the delay in moving the application for bail in the instant case, the FIR being of the year 2011, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in eleven other cases which would be evident from the statement made in paragraph no. 3 of the petition. He was not absconding and was ultimately remanded in custody.

5. Heard learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the petitioner together with the instant case being of the year 2011 and the petitioner having absconded for 11 years, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U