Wahid Alam @ Md. Wahid Alam v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33477 of 2018 (4) dt.10-07-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33477 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -357 Year- 2017 Thana -AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAURANGABAD ====================================================== WAHID ALAM @ MD. WAHID ALAM S/o Md. Motiur Rahman @ Md. Moti Alam, R/o Vill.- Salempur Suther Khan, P.S.- Muffasil, DistrictMunger, at present Vill.- Kunda, P.S.- Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura. ... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is in custody since 02.01.29018 in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 357 of 2017 for the offence registered under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120(b)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the misguided advice, petitioner has been placed in the present position and he is willing to abide by all the terms and conditions of this Court and that his father would stand sureties to himself. It is further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and so far as the main case relating to the occurrence is concerned, the petitioner has already been granted bail and for the allegations in the present case he is still languishing behind the Bar since 02.01.2018.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33477 of 2018 (4) dt.10-07-2018 Diary of the present case was called for which has since been received.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the entire gravity of the offence if considered in its true light is very serious and such a petitioner should not be encouraged and be granted bail as he tried to deceive the Court and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of bail.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U