Reyaz v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33265 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -62 Year- 2016 Thana -CHIRAIYA District- EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Reyaz son of late Usman resident of Village-Ram Chandar Dhaka, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar No.III For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 20-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 62 of 2016 registered under Sections 387, 420, 34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhaka, East Champraran.

The accusation is that when the informant was present at the school, three persons came and told that they are members of Inspection Team constituted for inspection of the school and thereafter, started to take photographs of the building and demanded Rs. 25,000/-. When the informant refused to give money, they threatened for his suspension. On 06.04.2016, the informant was called by the accused persons at the H.P. Petrol

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33265 of 2016 (2) dt.20-08-2016 2/2 Pump when he reached there the accused persons snatched Rs. 1500/- from his pocket and asked him to bring rest money giving threatening. In the meantime, Police came and caught hold one accused, who disclosed his name Nadeem Akram. Thereafter, he disclosed the names of his two associates as Saheb and petitioner Reyaz.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is a teacher and has falsely been implicated in this case.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected.

However, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court and pray for regular bail, which shall be decided on its own merit within four weeks without being prejudiced by the present order.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Shail/- U T