Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48149/2024bail rejected

Md. Chand v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-07Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48149 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-788 Year-2017 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Md. Chand Son of Md. Tunnu R/O Near Purani Masjid, Isapur, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, Dist.- Patna 2.

Md. Zakir Son of Md. Tunnu R/O Near Purani Masjid, Isapur, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, Dist.- Patna 3.

Md. Guddu @ Guddu Son of Md. Tunnu R/O Near Purani Masjid, Isapur, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shadab Akhter, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey (App.84) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 07-08-2024 Heard Mr. Shadab Akhter, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 788 of 2017 for the offence registered under sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 427 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 08.12.2017 by the informant, Rajendra Prasad Ravidas.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while he was coming from the grocery store near Phulwarisharif, unknown anti-social elements after beating his son, set the vehicle on fire. This followed the F.I.R.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48149 of 2024(2) dt.07-08-2024 2/2

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that from perusal of the FIR, it appears that it is lodged against unknown and later the petitioners were implicated.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that these petitioners have criminal antecedents and the FIR is of the year 2017, now they have approached this Court.

6. Taking into account the fact that seven long years have taken by these petitioners to approach this Court and no plausible reason has been assigned, this Court is afraid of extending the relief sought by them, particularly when they have criminal antecedents.

7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

8. However, if the petitioners shall surrender within four weeks from today and prefer bail, the Court concerned shall take up this matter on the same day and will try to dispose it of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Arish/- U T