Md. Rabi Alam @ Md. Ravi Alam @ Rabi Alam @ Rauf Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62201 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2023 Thana- PALASI District- Araria ====================================================== Md. Rabi Alam @ Md. Ravi Alam @ Rabi Alam @ Rauf Alam S/O Md Moin Alam R/O Village- Sisauna, Ward No. 11, PS. Jokihat, Distt. Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Munish Om Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 20-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Palasi P.S. Case No. 78 of 2023 giving rise to Sessions Trial No.394 of 2023, lodged on 18.03.2023, under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against the present petitioner with whom the deceased went on his motorcycle, but subsequently his dead body was recovered and near the dead body the knife used in the commission of crime has also been recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that the antecedent of the petitioner is clean. He is in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62201 of 2023(3) dt.20-12-2023 2/2 custody since 20.03.2023. Counsel submits that cognizance has been taken and charge has already been framed in this case on 16.09.2023, as such, keeping the accused in custody shall not solve any purpose particularly when charge has been framed.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the rejection order it is clear that name of the petitioner has figured in various paragraphs of the case-diary and the case-diary has been called for. In the casediary name of the petitioner has figured in several paragraphs. In the rejection order it is mentioned that self confession is also there.

6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within one year.

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