Sarfaraj @ Mithun And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2568 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-495 Year-2018 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria ======================================================

1. Sarfaraj @ Mithun and Ors Md. Ajimuddin Resident of Village- Mohaniya, Ward no. 2, P.S.- Lalasi, District- Araria.

2. Firyad @ Faryad @ Md. Firyad Md. Hafiz Resident of Village- Mohaniya, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Lalasi, District- Araria.

3. Iman @ Md. Iman Late Fida Hussain @ Fuddi Resident of VillageMohaniya, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Lalasi, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gopal Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Araria (Bairgachhi) P.S. Case No. 495 of 2018 ( (G.R. No. 2458 of 2018) registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant has alleged that he had send his driver Sarfraj Alam @ Mithun (petitioner) and one labour Rajesh Kumar Singh on his vehicle loaded with wheat and Maize and after sale, they received Rs. 1,68,750/- and were returning back then three unidentified culprits on Pulsar Bajaj motorcycle intercepted them and snatched away the amount. Name of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2568 of 2019(2) dt.22-01-2019 2/2 petitioner has surfaced in this case during investigation and it was found that petitioner who was driver of the vehicle himself misappropriated the whole amount. It is submitted that petitioners have no criminal antecedent Considering the allegation against petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after nine months of custody.

(S. Kumar, J) veena/- U T