Md. Musa Alam @ Ahil Asalam @ Ahil Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32741 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-734 Year-2023 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Md. Musa Alam @ Ahil Asalam @ Ahil Alam Son of Md. Iqbal Resident of Mohalla- Khasganj, P.S.- Sohsarai, Dist.- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sadanand Prasad Deo, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-05-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Laheri P.S. Case No. 734 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 366(A) and 34 of the I.P.C. lodged on 06.12.2023 by the informant, Vikram Kumar.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that when he had gone to the fish market, the accused persons intercepted, took him to the nearby ditch, forcefully transferred Rs. 89,000/- through pay-phone and later, forced his brother to transfer Rs. 8,00,000/- in the account. They left but not before snatching the mobile phone and the gold chain. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner came in the confessional statement of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32741 of 2024(2) dt.22-05-2024 2/2 Md. Saheb as also the CCTV footage. Further, he submits that the amount has not been transferred to his account and he do not have any criminal antecedent.

5. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP on the other hand opposes the prayer submitting that not only the accused Md. Saheb has made confession about him, the same got stamped by the CCTV footage in which this petitioner has been found alongwith the other accused persons. He further submits that it is for the trial court to ultimately decide the identities.

6. Taking into account the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner of having forced the informant to transfer Rs. 89,000/- and further to his brother to transfer Rs. 8,00,000/- in the account, the ransom crime is still continuing in the State, this Court cannot grant relief in such cases.

7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T