Md. Nizam v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72302 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2018 Thana- MUSAHARI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MD. NIZAM Son of Md. Islam Resident of Village - Salha, P.S.- Mushahari, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Alok Kumar Alok For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-11-2019 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mushahari P.S. Case No. 162 of 2018, registered under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Sub-Judge-VI-cum-A.C.J.M-VI, Muzaffarpur. The accusation is that in course of patrolling duty, informant received information that the stolen pick up van bearing registration No. BR06GF-5258 has been recovered and the same was loaded with bread carats and are being unloaded at the house of Ghanshyam Prasad Singh by Sahmad and Md. Nizam (Petitioner). Thereafter, informant alongwith other Police personnel reached at the house of petitioner and seized 30 cartons of bread recovered, where one person tried to flee
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72302 of 2019(2) dt.19-11-2019 2/2 away, but he was apprehended, who disclosed his name Ghanshyam, who also disclosed that Md. Sahmad and petitioner have carried the cartons of bread. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that regarding the theft of the vehicle loaded with bread, Mushahari P.S. Case No. 161 of 2018 was instituted in which petitioner has been allowed privilege of pre-arrest bail. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T