Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8762/2016rejected

Md. Sahzad @ Sahzad Sah And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar

2016-04-20Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8762 of 2016 (3) dt.20-04-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8762 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -182 Year- 2015 Thana -RAHIKA District- MADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Md. Sahzad @ Sahzad Sah Son of Farooque Sah Resident of Village Malhari P.s Kodhi District Gaya.

2. Md. Sanjari @Sahjeri son of Aftab Alam Resident of Village Kodhi P.s Kodhi Imamganj District Gaya.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No. 182 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 379, 411, 402/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 (A) of I. T. Act.

Allegedly, the petitioners were caught after chase when they have changed the ATM card of the informant and further the villagers assaulted both the petitioners. Submission is of false implication and that the informant has himself withdrawn the amount of Rs. 10,000/- , no loss was caused to the informant and as such the petitioners deserve sympathetic consideration to which learned APP seriously

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8762 of 2016 (3) dt.20-04-2016 opposes by submitting that from possession of the petitioners 7 and 5 ATM cards respectively of different persons besides other incriminating articles were recovered and they are the active members of the gang involved in withdrawing amount after changing the ATM of innocent persons.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the alleged recovery, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, accordingly, their such prayer stands rejected.

However, let the trial be expedited and concluded within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T