Patna High CourtCR. MISC./57658/2024bail rejected

Md. Ekramul v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-28Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57658 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2022 Thana- NATIONAL HIGHWAY DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Md. Ekramul son of Abdul Barik Village- Daulatpur Ps- Mathurapur DistSamastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 28-10-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with N.H. Bangra P.S. Case No. 121 of 2022 for the offence punishable under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 20.09.2022 by the informant, Avinash Kumar.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while he was returning from the shop on his motorcycle to Samastipur, was overtaken by the accused persons and on the point of pistol, they ran away with his motorcycle, this led to FIR against unknown.

4. Subsequently, during the investigation, one Sudhanshu Kumar @ Vicky was arrested and he beside confessing to the guilt, named this petitioner whom the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57658 of 2024(3) dt.28-10-2024 2/2 motorcycle was handed over.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though his name has come in the confessional statement, no T.I. Parade has been conducted.

6. Learned APP on the other hand submits that different paragraphs clearly show that it is the petitioner whom the accused Sudhanshu Kumar handed over the motorcycle, this coupled with the fact that he had nine criminal antecedents of almost same nature.

7. Taking into account the aforesaid facts that has emerged against the petitioner and the investigation is supported in the case diary, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail.

8. The present bail application stands rejected.

9. Since the petitioner is in custody, the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T