Patna High CourtCR. MISC./60252/2017dismissed

Md. Shakiluddin @ Md. Shakilur Rahman v. The State Of Bihar

2018-01-16Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.60252 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -677 Year- 2017 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ====================================================== Md. Shakiluddin @ Md. Shakilur Rahman son of Late Md. Zainuddin resident of Mohalla Line Bazar, P.S. K. Hat (Sahayak), District Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Anusuiya Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with K. Hat (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 677 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that he alongwith one another person entered in the house of the informant in the night of 22.09.2017. He threatened the informant and his wife on the point of pistol and looted away cash of Rs. 3 lacs and mobiles. Both the miscreants also assaulted the informant and his wife.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60252 of 2017 (3) dt.16-01-2018 2/2 petitioner is not named in the FIR and he is a regular staff of the informant for the last 12 years. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 25.09.2017.

Police on specific information raided the house of petitioner and recovered Rs. 1 lac cash from his possession. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected. However, after one year of custody the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

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