Md. Kalim v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40866 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -235 Year- 2016 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ====================================================== Md. Kalim Son of Late Seikh Trai @ Md. Turai resident of Village- Saura Zabar, Police Station- Dagarua in the district of Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 16-11-2016 Heard Mr. Raj Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. Raman, APP for the State.

The petitioner prays for grant of bail in K. Hat (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 235 of 2016 registered under sections 468, 471 and 414/34 IPC.

On self statement, the FIR was lodged by the Police Officer alleging that on confidential information he went to the house belonging to the petitioner and recovered several motorcycles kept in the courtyard. No document was produced. On the statement of the petitioner, his ancestral house was also searched wherefrom also looted/stolen motorcycles were recovered.

The contention of the petitioner is that it was the son and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40866 of 2016 (3) dt.16-11-2016 2/2 other family members who were involved in the commission of crime. The petitioner is the father, aged about 55 years. he is languishing in jail custody since 12.06.2016 Learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that from the FIR it would appear that the petitioner is one of the members of the gang involved in stealing/looting the motorcycles and thereafter selling the same by crating fake/forged documents. The Court also finds few criminal cases pending against the petitioner. It is stated that those cases were lodged subsequent to the present case.

Be that as it may, considering the nature of the allegation, coupled with other materials reflected from the record, this Court, for the present, is not inclined to extend the petitioner the privilege of bail. Prayer is accordingly rejected.

However, considering the fact that the petitioner is an old person, the Court grants him liberty to renew his prayer for bail after 05 months.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U T