Md. Sufaid v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44587 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2018 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== MD. SUFAID Son of Amirullah @ Md. Amirullah Resident of VillageBrindavan Tola Alakhbani, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nafisu Zzoha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 96 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 402, 414, 465, 467, 468, 471,120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of planning to commit loot/dacoity.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is in jail since 07.01.2026.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the allegation levelled against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44587 of 2026(4) dt.20-07-2026 2/2 petitioner and the fact that he had four criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present.

7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charges in the concerned Court below.

8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (Sandeep Kumar, J) shalini/- U T