Md. Taufique v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54859 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-339 Year-2021 Thana- PIRBAHOR District- Patna ====================================================== Md. Taufique S/o- Shahabuddin Village- Taartal Darzitola Chaman Maidan Patna ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Noushad Khan Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Mohammad Sufyan, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 14-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, when the informant came to NIT mor to drop his friend, one person came on motorcycle dashed car of the informant and started scuffling with him. In the meantime, two persons came there and on the point of pistol demanded and took net banking password from the informant. It is alleged that the accused persons transferred a total of Rs. 2.50 lakhs from the informant's account in two transactions, specifically Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 1.50 lakhs. It is claimed that Rs. 1.50 lakh, transferred in the second transaction, was credited to the bank account of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54859 of 2024(3) dt.14-10-2025 2/2 submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner's name has come in this case during course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. Petitioner and informant are friends. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, arguing that evidence obtained during investigation indicates that the Rs. 1.50 lakh, which was unlawfully transferred from the informant's account, was deposited into the petitioner's bank account. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner does not merit the privilege of prearrest bail.
6. I agree with the submission of the State counsel. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T