Patna High CourtCR. MISC./59083/2024dismissed

Md. Shamsher @ Md. Siknder Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-28Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59083 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2024 Thana- GAYA RAIL P.S. District- Gaya ====================================================== Md. Shamsher @ Md. Siknder Alam S/o Md. Sikandar R/o vill - Murarpur, P.S. - Kotwali, Distt. - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Patna Gaya Rail P.S. Case No. 20 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 414 of the IPC.

3. As per allegation, the informant along with other police personnels was on patrolling duty. Upon seeing the police party, the petitioner started fleeing away but he was apprehended and two mobile sets were recovered from his possession.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. Nothing incriminating article was recovered from his possession. He is under custody since 04.03.2024.

5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59083 of 2024(2) dt.28-08-2024 2/2 prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has five criminal antecedent other than the present one and he was caught on the spot and two mobile phones were recovered from his conscious possession.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances and also considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, he doesn't deserve the privilege of bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

7. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) priyanka/- U T