Zafir Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26802 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2022 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West Champaran ====================================================== Zafir Alam S/o Sheikh Kamrul Hoda R/o vill - Kurshi Barwa, P.s. - Sikta, Distt. - West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhagya Narayan Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kr., APP For the Informant :

Mr.Shashank Shekhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 30-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 253 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 384, 420, 406, 467, 487, 471, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation, on the assurance of providing job in foreign country, the petitioner along with other accused persons duped the informant by taking Rs. 5 lakh cash and Rs. 1,25,000/- in his bank account.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26802 of 2024(3) dt.30-07-2024 2/2 this case. The petitioner had only duty to provide visa and passport to the son and son-in-law of the informant for sending them abroad. The petitioner is under custody since 19.10.2023.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has three criminal antecedents. Moreover, the petitioner along with other accused persons duped the informant by taking Rs. 5 lakh cash and Rs. 1,25,00/- in his bank account.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege for bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Kundan/- U T