Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43029/2021bail rejected

Dilshad Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

2022-03-09Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43029 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2020 Thana- GOPALPUR District- West Champaran ====================================================== DILSHAD ANSARI Son of Akbar Ansari Resident of Village- Awaraiya, Barhai Tola, P.S.- Bettiah Muffasil (Banuchhapra), District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-03-2022 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. Petitioner, who is in custody since 04.01.2021, seeks regular bail in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.06.2021 at about 10:00 p.m. while the informant was going to Parsona on bike bearing Registration No. BR22AL 2250, near Shivghat Bridge, four persons came on motorcycle and surrounded the informant and had started beating. They snatched motorcycle and mobile phone of the informant and fled away.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43029 of 2021(3) dt.09-03-2022 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has been roped in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of one co-accused namely, Mithun Kumar due to dirty local politics. Petitioner is in custody since 04.01.2021.

Considering the criminal antecedent of the petitioner who is involved in more than half a dozen cases, there is every likelihood of his becoming nuisance to the society and it will not be in public interest to enlarge the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months.

If no substantial progress takes place in conduct of trial, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after the aforesaid period.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T