Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7733/2021dismissed

Md. Dilshad v. The State Of Bihar

2021-09-03Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7733 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2020 Thana- SINGHIYA District- Samastipur ====================================================== MD. DILSHAD S/o - Late Md. Naushad @ Naushad Nadaf @ Chhedi Nadaf, Resident of Village- Lilhaul, P.S.- Singhia, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhimanyu Sharma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anuj Kr. Srivastava, APp ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-09-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual Court proceedings. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 411, 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner alongwith other accused persons is said to have indulged in selling and purchasing of stolen motorcycle.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no any incriminating articles has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 17.07.2020. The petitioner has 07 criminal antecedents which is mentioned in para 3 of the bail petition.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7733 of 2021(3) dt.03-09-2021 2/2 Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail petition and submits that the petitioner has 07 criminal antecedents which is mentioned in para 3 of the bail application.

I perused the record including the case diary, it appears that the petitioner had fled away from the police custody on 18.06.2020 and has 07 criminal antecedents. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected in connection with Singhia P.S. Case No. 82/2020 from the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera at Samastipur.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) amitkumar/- U T