Md. Gulzar @ Gulanjar @ Md. Guljar Hussain v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71890 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2022 Thana- AAJAM NAGAR District- Katihar ====================================================== MD. GULZAR @ GULANJAR @ MD. GULJAR HUSSAIN Son of Md. Sakur R/v- Dighaliya, P.S.- Azamnagar, District- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Helal Ahmad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 21-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 364(A), 364, 365, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, some unknown persons abducted and killed the son of the informant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. He submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. There is no direct evidence and no eyewitness, only on the basis of suspicion, petitioner has been implicated in the present case. He is languishing in judicial custody since 03.02.2022.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71890 of 2022(3) dt.21-04-2023 2/2 the State and submitted that during investigation, it appears from para-73 of the case diary that deceased's mobile was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. As per postmortem report, the doctor opined that cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation. The CDR mobile tower location of the deceased and the petitioner is same, which also corroborate the prosecution case. Several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case during investigation. Earlier the prayer for bail of other co-accused was stands rejected vide order dated 03.01.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 38631 of 2022 and its analogous cases.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months, failing which petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) arish/- U T