Md. Abdullah @ Bholta @ Bholat v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22068 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2024 Thana- LADANIA District- Madhubani ====================================================== MD. ABDULLAH @ BHOLTA @ BHOLAT SON OF LATE AHMAD HUSSAIN @ LATE AHAMAD SAFI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DHARMBAN, P.S. - LADANIYA, DISTRICT - MADHUBANI ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 04-04-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Ladaniya P.S. Case no.4 of 2024 registered under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that while he was returning with his driver, two accused persons on a motorcycle on the point of katta dispossessed the informant of his bag containing Rs. 3.6 lacs in cash.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was registered against unknown. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the case in course of investigation. Referring to the order of the learned trial Court, it is submitted that the prosecution is mainly relying on the information given by a spy, the tower location of the petitioner's mobile and the fact that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22068 of 2024(2) dt.04-04-2024 2/2 allegedly mobile phone and Rs. 11,500/- was recovered from the petitioner's possession. Further, allegedly a motorcycle was recovered from outside the shop of the petitioner. It is submitted that the motorcycle and mobile phone belong to the petitioner and Rs. 11,500/- is such an amount which may be available in any other shop. The petitioner is in custody since 17.1.2024 and has not been put on T.I parade.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation in the FIR, the material that has transpired in course of investigation as is evident from the order of the learned trial Court and the petitioner not having been put on TI parade inspite of being in custody since 17.1.2024, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Ladaniya P.S. Case no.4 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani. (Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U T