Gufran v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40060 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2022 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar ====================================================== GUFRAN Son of Late Md. Salamuddin R/O Vill.- Chausa, P.S.- Buxar (M), Dist.- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 05.06.2022 and is a person with clean antecedent.

The informant alleges that his son Saiyad Jaid aged about five years went outside the house for playing but did not return, thereafter, a hectic search was made but the child could not be located, thus the informant alleged that some unknown culprits might have kidnapped his son.

Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40060 of 2022(3) dt.10-02-2023 2/3 petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, it is next submitted that the date of occurrence is 4.03.2022 and the FIR came to be instituted on 5.03.2022 against unknown and on 06.03.2022, the reinstatement of the informant was recorded wherein also he did not name the petitioner, it is next submitted three months thereafter when his subsequent reinstatement was recorded as would be evident from paragraph 44 of the Case Diary wherein the informant for the first time took the name of the petitioner stating that on account of land dispute at some point of time the petitioner had threatened that he will have to face consequences.

Leaned counsel submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that if what has been alleged by the petitioner in his subsequent reinstatement is true what prevented him from alleging the said fact in the FIR or in his reinstatement which was recorded on 06.03.2022, this amply demonstrates that by way of after thought the petitioner has been implicated. Leaned APP opposes the bail application but fairly submits that apart from suspicion nothing has come during the course of investigation which even remotely connect the petitioner with the offence.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody, is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40060 of 2022(3) dt.10-02-2023 3/3 a person with clean antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Buxar P.S. Case No. 87 of 2022.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) GauravSinha/- U T