Md. Ali @ Md. Hazrat @ Md. Hazrat Ali v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14020 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -66 Year- 2017 Thana -AHIAPUR District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Md. Ali @ Md. Hazrat @ Md. Hazrat Ali, Son of Md. Yusuf @ Md. Daroga, Resident of Village- Shyampur, P.S.- Bhathan, District- Sheohar, at present R/o- Village Mustafapur, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 66 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been made accused in this case on the basis of the confessional statement and nothing has been recovered from him. Even the vehicle has been recovered from the road and not from the Garage of the petitioner and he has no criminal antecedent and remained in custody for two months.

Heard learned A.P.P. also. He opposes the prayer for bail stating that the petitioner has been apprehended on chase and the stolen vehicle has been recovered in front of the Garage of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14020 of 2017 (3) dt.10-04-2017 2/2 the petitioner and there is allegation that he is engaged in the sale and purchase of the stolen vehicles and by changing their names he used to sell them.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and as such the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same within a period of nine months.

The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) S.Pandey/- U T