Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22321/2024bail granted

Mohammad Haider Ali @ Md. Haider Ali v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-04Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22321 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1795 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria ====================================================== MOHAMMAD HAIDER ALI @ MD. HAIDER ALI SON OF YUNUS @ UNUS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - NANDANPUR, BRAHAMAN TOLA, WARD NO. - 06, P.S. - BAUSI BASATHI, DISTRICT - ARARIA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

MD. AUSAD MIYA SON OF LATE ALI HASAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - RAMPUR WARD NO. - 06, P.S. - RANIGANJ, DISTRICT - ARARIA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 04-04-2024

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

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Complaint Case no. 1795 C of 2022 registered under sections 420, 323, 341, 384, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegations in the complaint, the complainant states that though the petitioner had purchased maize crop worth of Rs. 8,04,724/- from the complainant, however, he paid only Rs. 90,000/- and has cheated the complainant of a total sum of Rs. 7,14,724/-. As such the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Besides the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22321 of 2024(2) dt.04-04-2024 2/2 allegations being one of pure business dealings and/or money dispute, the complainant also happens to be the maternal uncle of the petitioner's wife. The petitioner is in custody since 31.01.2024.

5. The application for bail is opposed by the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner besides being named in the complaint, there is direct allegation against him. To substantiate the allegations, it is submitted that cognizance has already been taken in the learned court below.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegations in the complaint, the petitioner having remained in custody since 31.01.2024, the Court directs the petitioner to be enlarged on bail in connection with Complaint Case no. 1795 C of 2022 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Skand Raj, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Araria. (Partha Sarthy, J) perwez U T