← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./55244/2021bail rejected

Md Nausad v. The State Of Bihar

2022-05-20Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55244 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2020 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== MD NAUSAD S/o Late Md. Hakim Miya Resident of Village- Basaitha Madhaul, P.S.- Saraiya, Distt- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ratneshwar Prasad, Mr. Nitu Kumari, Advocates.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-05-2022 Heard Mr. Ratneshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State via virtual mode. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Vaishali PS Case No. 53/2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC.

Six unknown miscreants sitting on two motorcycles overtook the motorcycle of informant and looted away a sum of Rs. 1,51,000/-, mobile phone and some documents etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement made by the co-accused, Satish Kumar. No looted article and or any incriminating material has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55244 of 2021(2) dt.20-05-2022 2/2 recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2021 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted.

Regards being had to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the material on record and the fact that petitioner has got criminal antecedents inasmuch as six case of serious nature of offences have been registered against him, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. The same is, hereby, rejected.

The petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after nine months from today if the trial does not record substantial progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T