Md. Bhosul @ Nausad Ansari @ Monsul @ Nausad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52534 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -52 Year- 2009 Thana -BHAGALPUR GRP CASE DistrictBHAGALPUR ====================================================== Md. Bhosul @ Nausad Ansari @ Monsul @ Nausad S/O Md. Nasir @ Nasiruddin, resident of Village- Mahadeoganj P.S.- Mufasil (Muslim Tola) District- Sahebganj (Jharkhand) .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Davendra Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-12-2015 Heard Sri Shivesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Devendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, who is in custody since 06.02.2015 in connection with Bhagalpur Rail P.S. Case no.52/09 corresponding to S.T. No.943(B)/2010 registered for the offence under Sections 395, 397, 412 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is nothing against the petitioner, save and except confessional statement of co-accused. On the aforesaid ground, he has prayed

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52534 of 2015 (3) dt.09-12-2015 2/2 for grant of bail.

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that on perusal of para-3 of the petition, it is evident that the petitioner is convict in relation to the same offence i.e. under Sections 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Of course, after conviction he has preferred an appeal before the Jharkhand High Court and he was on bail. Keeping in view the fact that the dacoity was committed in the running train and material on record, particularly the fact that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of bail. The petition stands dismissed.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, charge has already been framed. Accordingly, while dismissing the bail petition, it would be appropriate to observe that the trial court may take appropriate steps, so that trial may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U