Md. Arman @ Samstabrej v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26685 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2023 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== Md. Arman @ Samstabrej S/O Md. Parvej R/O ViIl. - Chanchaur Rahimtaul, P.S - Ujiarpur, Distt. - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surya Narayan Roy For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 15-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 336 of 2023 lodged on 03.12.2023 under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown accused persons against whom there is an allegation that they have snatched Motorcycle along with cash, credit card, Pan Card etc.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel also submits that that the name of the petitioner has been figured in this case only by virtue of confessional statement of the c0accused. Counsel further submits that the criminal antecedent of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26685 of 2024(3) dt.15-05-2024 2/2 the petitioner is not clean and there are seven cases pending against him in which he is on bail in all the cases. The petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2024. He further submits that other coaccused has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20900 of 2024.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that antecedent of the petitioner is not clean.

6. Upon specific query of this Court that whether charge has been framed or not, counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that as per his knowledge charge has not been framed.

7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordinlgy, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8.However, petitioner is at liberty that he may renew his prayer for bail one year after framing of charge. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Sunnykr/- U