Md. Imran @ Aftab @ Md. Imran Aftab v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40582 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -190 Year- 2013 Thana -RAJAUN District- BANKA ====================================================== MD. IMRAN @ AFTAB @ MD. IMRAN AFTAB, Son of Md. Wasiuddin, Resident of Mohalla- Dawudchak, Pankha Toli, P.S. Habibpur, District- Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar Jha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Rajoun P.S. Case No. 190/2013 (G.R. No. 2084/2013), registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Informant in his written complaint has alleged that while he was returning from his truck after collecting cash, eight persons boarded on motorcycle surrounded the truck and looted cash and other articles.

It has been submitted that F.I.R. is against unknown. Name of petitioner surfaced in this case on the basis of confessional statement of Md. Imtiyaz. It has been further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Md. Tousif @ Fuchu has already been granted bail, vide Annexure-2 of this petition.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40582 of 2018 (3) dt.20-09-2018 2/2 Petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2018.

Considering the facts aforesaid, the petitioner abovenamed, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka in connection with Rajoun P.S. Case No. 190/2013 (G.R. 2084/13), subject to the conditions:

(1.) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the c.ourt concerned.

(2.) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will be sufficient to cancel his bail bonds.

(3.) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

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