Md Khurshid @ Guddu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50974 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2017 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MD KHURSHID @ GUDDU Son of Md. Slim Resident of VillageKaparpura, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raju Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammad Sufyan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-05-2022 Heard the parties.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ahiyapur PS Case No. 59 / 2017, S.Tr. No. 205 / 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC.

As per the First Information Report some unknown miscreants riding on a Scorpio overtook and intercepted the Scorpio vehicle of the informant and looted his vehicle on gun point.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he was arrested by the police while a deal for sale of a Safari vehicle was being done

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50974 of 2021(3) dt.16-05-2022 2/3 in the garage namely M/s Roshani Automobile along with looted Scorpio vehicle. The name of the petitioner also transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused / Satyam Kumar who has been granted bail by a Bench of this court.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner has not disclosed correctly his criminal antecedents and from the case diary it appears that petitioner has four (04) criminal antecedents of similar nature of offence but the petitioner has disclosed only three (03) criminal antecedents in the main petition as well as in the supplementary affidavit and two cases which are mentioned in the case diary have not been disclosed by the petitioner in his respective petitions. He next submits that the co-accused / Satyam Kumar has been granted bail by a Bench of this court in second attempt. The petitioner is a history sheeter and does not deserve the privilege of bail. Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties, taking into consideration the nature of allegation, the fact that petitioner has got criminal antecedents and he has been arrested along with the looted vehicle, as such, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. The prayer for grant of regular bail is rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50974 of 2021(3) dt.16-05-2022 3/3 However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial does not show any progress. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T