Md. Mansoor @ Bablu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63387 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2022 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== MD. MANSOOR @ BABLU Son Of Md. Ahmad @ Ahmad Resident Of Village - Mubarakur, Saunkh, P.S. - Muffasil, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anshu Dhar Sharma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-09-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 330 of 2022, dated 25.06.2022 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 341 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. This is second attempt of the petitioner for the relief of regular bail after his earlier prayer was rejected by this Bench vide order dated 06.04.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 63576 of 2022 preferred by this petitioner.

4. The main submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are that the petitioner had no connection to the cause of the alleged occurrence as according to the last portion of the FIR, co-accused Md. Ashraf and Md.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63387 of 2023(2) dt.22-09-2023 2/2 Shahabuddin are alleged to be involved in the earlier occurrence which was allegedly committed with the victim, so there was no reason for the petitioner to be involved in the commission of the alleged occurrence and he has been languishing in jail since 26.06.2022 having fair and clean antecedent and in actual, at the time of commission of the alleged occurrence, he was residing outside the country and working in Kuwait for his livelihood. Further submission is that the informant has filed the present case with an intention to extort money from the petitioner.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the nature of allegation which relates to causing firearm injury to the victim and petitioner's active role has been revealed by the victim in the FIR and the victim sustained firearm injuries in commission of the alleged occurrence, in my opinion, petitioner does not deserve to the privilege of bail. Accordingly, petitioner's prayer for bail again stands rejected.

(Shailendra Singh, J.) Maynaz/- U T