Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48223/2024rejected

Md. Afroz v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-15Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48223 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-898 Year-2023 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== Md. Afroz Son Of Md. Darban @ Md. Darman Village- Chakla Nirmalli Ward No. 6, Supaul Ps- Supaul, Dist- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, it is a case of recovery of a motorcycle without number plate along with some cash.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and he is in custody since 05.12.2023 and the petitioner has got clean stated in para-3 of the petition.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48223 of 2024(2) dt.15-07-2024 2/2 prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. On perusal of the first information report, seizure list and impugned order dated 05.03.2024, it appears that total cash of Rs.14,000/- of different denominations, photo copy of Adhar card, driving license of the informant has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and in para-7 of the case diary, independent witness Vivek Kumar has supported the case of the prosecution as stated in the impugned order.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

9. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the trail court. (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T