Md. Ranuk @ Ronak Zameer @ Md. Rounaque Zameer v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10690 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -639 Year- 2014 Thana -PURNEA SADAR District- PURNIA ====================================================== Md. Ranuk @ Ronak Zameer @ Md. Rounaque Zameer son of Md. Athar Resident of village - Shishabari, Peepal tola, P.S. - Routa, District - Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nadimul Hasan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Lalan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 29-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 16.9.2016 in connection with Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 639 of 2014 for offence alleged under Section 323, 341, 504, 506, 386 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, as alleged by the informant, who is a staff of Inerika Computer Institute, is that two persons who were repeatedly coming for admission and when the admission fee was disclosed to them, they tried to have a rebate but when the informant did not give them rebate the aforesaid two persons along with others assaulted and took away mobile, laptop and other articles of the computer and Institute.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10690 of 2017 (2) dt.29-03-2017 2/2 It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case on the basis of the confessional statement of one Anil Kumar Sahni, who has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 44677 of 2016 on 28.11.2016. Further nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further submits that charge sheet has already been submitted, hence, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

However, learned A.P.P., for the State, submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR, hence, opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let the petitioner, above named, 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, Purnea in connection with Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 639 of 2014.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) S.Pandey/- U T