Md. Arman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11068 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2021 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Md. Arman Son Of Latif Mian @ Md. Latif Resident Of Village- Keshopur, Ps- Sakra, Distt- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Rina Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Pronoti Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 08-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Tajpur P.S. Case No. 194 of 2021, lodged on 19.05.2021, under Sections 395/412/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against seven unknown accused persons with allegation that they have looted Rs.7,90,590/- from the Bank along with ATM card and other documents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that during investigation his name has figured and recovery of Rs.25,67,500/- has been made from the petitioner's possession. It is due to this reason, police has inserted the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11068 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2024 2/2 petitioner's name. Counsel submits that recovery of money has been made with the petitioner but it is in another case, i.e., Hajipur Town P.S. Case No.458 of 2021, in the present case he has been remanded. Counsel fairly submits that there are four criminal antecedents of the petitioner and he is in custody since 29.04.2022 in the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that antecedent of the petitioner is not clean. There are four criminal cases pending against the petitioner and the alleged dacoity has been taken place in the State Bank of India whereas the money alleged to have been recovered from the possession is of H.D.F.C. Bank.

6. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail one year after framing of the charge, if not framed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T