Md. Naim @ Md. Naim Mia @ Naim Miya @ Md. Naim Miya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57941 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2023 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Md. Naim @ Md. Naim Mia @ Naim Miya @ Md. Naim Miya Son Of Late Md. Amin Resident Of Dharhara, P.S. Ara Town, District Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan Mr. Avinava Kumar Mr. Hafiz Shahbaz Arif For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 24-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 384 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 42 and 52 of the Prisoner Act.

3. It is a case of ransom demand and recovery of Rs. 70,000/- from the petitioner when he was under treatment at Sadar Hospital at prisoners ward, Ara.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case without cogent evidence. The occurrence as alleged by the police in the F.I.R. is totally false and fabricated and police did not comply the provision

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57941 of 2023(5) dt.24-01-2024 2/2 under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted in para 7 of the supplementary affidavit that the seized money was not stolen money but the same belongs to the petitioner's wife and was just kept below the pillow of the petitioner for the expenses to be occurred in his treatment. No any complain has been made by the public against the petitioner in respect of ransom demand. There is no proof that the said recovered money was collected as ransom money by the petitioner. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 04.02.2023.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of custody, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Ara Town P.S. Case No. 72 of 2023.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T