Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5174/2016rejected

Md. Jubair v. The State Of Bihar

2016-03-29Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5174 of 2016 (3) dt.29-03-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5174 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -345 Year- 2015 Thana -BEGUSARAI TOWN District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Md. Jubair, Son of Md. Munna, Resident of Village- Ninga, P.S.- Barauni, District- Begusarai..... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashraf Ansari(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 29-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 345 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379/34 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, amount of Rs. 3,72,134/- kept in a bag was snatched by two motorcycle borne criminals. During investigation on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner sum of Rs. 96,500/- was recovered from the house of Hazra Khatoon. Submission is of false implication and that nothing was recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, the Police after adopting 3rd degree method recorded the confessional statement of the petitioner which has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law and as such he deserves sympathetic consideration

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5174 of 2016 (3) dt.29-03-2016 to which the learned APP seriously opposes by submitting that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent of similar nature of cases and on the basis of his confessional statement part of the snatched amount was recovered in presence of the petitioner from the house of one Hazra Khatoon.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, let the trial be expedited and concluded within nine months and if the trial is not concluded without any fault on the part of the petitioner within such period, then he may be at liberty to renew the prayer of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T