Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51318/2017dismissed

Karu Mian @ Mustafa Mian v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-11-09Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51318 of 2017 (2) dt.09-11-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51318 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -117 Year- 2013 Thana -JHAJHA District- JAMUI ====================================================== Karu Mian @ Mustafa Mian S/o Sultan Mian, R/o Village- Dhodhari, P.S.- Simultalla, District- Jamui.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Amrendar Kumar S/o Sri Indu Bhushan Prasad Singh, Up Prachalari Prabandhak, R/o Hazaribagh at present Pradip Haldiya, Barauni Pipe Line, District- Begusarai.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Adv For the State : APP For the IOCL : Mr.Krishna Chandra, Adv CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 09-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 11.05.2017 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 304 of 2017, arising out of Jhajha P.S. Case No. 117 of 2013 for the alleged offences under Sections 379/511 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 15 and 16 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline Act, 1962 (Amendment Act, 2011).

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated only on the confessional statement of co-accused Arjun Singh recorded in Simultalla P.S. Case No. 54 of 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a specific statement that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51318 of 2017 (2) dt.09-11-2017 petitioner has not been arrested at the spot in connection with the said Simultalla P.S. Case No. 54 of 2015. It is submitted that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and he has not been put on T.I. parade.

4. Learned counsel for the informant appearing suo motu however, states that the petitioner had in fact been arrested at the spot in the occurrence related to Simultalla P.S. Case No. 54 of 2015 and sought time to bring the relevant FIR on record to demonstrate the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then accepted the aforesaid stand of the informant.

6. Be that as it may and having regard to the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, which disclosed that he has made accused in as many as seven cases, some of them being of serious nature involving Explosives Substance Act, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. The bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT U T