Patna High CourtCR. MISC./82067/2024bail rejected

Shahnawaz Khan @ Md. Shahnwaj Khan v. The State Of Bihar

2025-02-18Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82067 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1025 Year-2024 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Shahnawaz Khan @ Md. Shahnwaj Khan Son Of Munna Khan @ Noor Khan @ Md Noor Khan R/O Vill.- Barheta, P.S.- Hathauri, Dist.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 1025 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 137(2), 140(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and, later on, added Section 103(1) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. As per prosecution case, the accusation against the accused persons including the petitioner is of firstly kidnapping the Informant's elder brother and, thereafter, committing his murder.

2/4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case with false and frivolous allegations. The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. There is a land dispute between the parties. The Informant is not the eye-witness to the the alleged occurrence. There is no specific or direct allegation of any overt act against the petitioner rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. The CCTV footage does not show the presence of the petitioner at the alleged place of occurrence. The CDR analysis of the accused persons also ruled out the complicity of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that except extrajudicial confession of the coaccused persons, there is nothing against the petitioner in this case.

Even the confession cannot be relied upon as it has not led to recovery of any incriminating material from the conscious/physical possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 02.08.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State

3/4 and the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature. The Informant and other witnesses in Para 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case. The police has recovered used motorcycle and helmet of the deceased from the place of occurrence. Para-45 of the case diary shows the recovery of the deceased from Darbhanga district. There is confessional statement of co-accused Sahil which in contained in Para-55 of the case diary in which he has confessed that he along with co-accused persons have committed the offence.

In Para-99, there is confessional statement of the co-accused Munna Khan in which he has also stated that he in association with other co-accused persons including the petitioner has committed the offence. The police, on the basis of the disclosures made by the co-accused Munna Khan and Noor Khan, have also recovered the alleged vehicle used in the alleged occurrence bearing Regd. No. BR06DG-6435. The postmortem report supports the prosecution case.

4/4 accused persons including the petitioner for offence under Sections 137(2), 140(1), 103(1), 61(2) of the B.N.S. The investigation is still pending. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and, hence, he does not deserve bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature and gravity of the offence as also there being specific allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) rishi/- U T