Md. Sultan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18808 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2019 Thana- KASBA District- Purnia ====================================================== MD. SULTAN S/o Late Ilyas R/o village- Chandardai Prem Nagar, P.S. and Distt.- Araria ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Kasba P. S. Case No. 65 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is in custody since 06.11.2019. It is alleged in the First Information Report that two unknown miscreants had snatched informant's bag containing cash worth Rs.17,808/- and a mobile phone.

On perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the petitioner's name surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that except for the confessional statement of the co-accused before the police and so-called confessional statement of the petitioner, there is no material against him. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18808 of 2020(9) dt.15-01-2021 2/2 has submitted that since the charge-sheet has been submitted, no tangible purpose would be served, if the petitioner is compelled to remain in custody anymore.

Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant him privilege of bail for the present. A report has been received from the Court below, from which it transpires that the case is fixed for evidence.

In such view of the matter, this application is dismissed with an observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if in the meanwhile there is no substantial progress at the trial. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U T