Md. Bilal @ Bilal Miyan @ Belal Miyan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74168 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-783 Year-2024 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Md. Bilal @ Bilal Miyan @ Belal Miyan Son of Late Nizamuddin @ Nizzu Resident of Village - Abarpul, P.S.- Ara Nagar, District - Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raju Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-02-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State Mr. Rabindra Kumar.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ara Nagar P.S. Case No.783/2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 326(b) 308(5), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 115(2) of the B.N.S.S.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of 11 cases and is in custody since 30.05.2025 and the informant alleges that petitioner forcefully took Rs.1,30,000/- from his pocket and thereafter made him get down from the motorcycle and thereafter took him to the street of Dr. Anwar, further petitioner earlier had demanded extortion of Rs.10 lacs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner and the informant are

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74168 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026 2/2 next door neighbour. It is further submitted that it does not appear probable that petitioner would have demanded extortion from his neighbour.

5. Learned APP Mr. Rabindra Kumar vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that if what has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is true i.e. petitioner and the informant are neighbour, as such why the petitioner would have demanded extortion or would have snatched Rs.1,30,000/- and thus has been falsely implicated in the case but then in that event the petitioner would have brought on record previous animosity which was brewing in between him and the informant but then from perusal of the pleading, it does not appear that any reason for false implication has been pleaded. It is also submitted that petitioner has antecedent of 11 serious cases and if privilege of regular bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

7. The regular bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T