Md. Jamaluddin @ Bhutna v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54013 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-550 Year-2023 Thana- MITHANPURA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Md. Jamaluddin @ Bhutna Son of Md. Shahabuddin Resident of MohallaRambagh Chowk, P.S.- Mithanpura, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Ranjan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Lal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 31-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No.550 of 2023 lodged under Sections 457 and 380 of the I.P.C. in which section 411 of the I.P.C. was also added.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown accused persons with allegation that theft by breaking lock, almirah etc. has been made at the house of the informant when he was outside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the name of the petitioner has been figured in this case by virtue of confessional statement only. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner's possession.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54013 of 2024(2) dt.31-07-2024 2/2

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 24.12.2023 having four criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has already been filed in this case.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the rejection order, it has been clearly mentioned that the recovery of theft articles, cash etc. has been made from the house of the co-accused who has disclosed the name of the petitioner about his involvement and presence of the petitioner has also been verified from the CDR.

7. Counsel further submits that that the petitioner's antecedent is also not clean. There are four criminal cases pending against him.

8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail 3 (three) months after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T