Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11321/2024dismissed

Rajjad @ Md. Sajjad v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-09Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11321 of 2024 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59500 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2019 Thana- BARSOI District- Katihar ====================================================== Rajjad @ Md. Sajjad SON OF MD. SARFUL Resident of village- Khidirpur Dhumtola PS- Barsoi District- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md Musowir For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted regular bail by an order dated 09.03.2022 in Cr. Misc. No.59500 of 2021 with a condition that one of the bailor shall be the father of (Md. Sarful) of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel next submits that the petitioner till date has not been released as the father of the petitioner is not in a condition to approach the Courts for furnishing bail bond on account of his health condition. On query of the Court that as to when the father of the petitioner became ill, on which learned counsel fairly submits that in the year 2023, it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11321 of 2024(2) dt.09-02-2024 2/2 absolutely does not stand to reasons that when the petitioner was granted bail by order dated 09.03.2022 in Cr. Misc. No.59500 of 2021 then why the bail bond was not furnished by the father when his heath had not deteriorated and was in a fit condition. It is further submits that petitioner was involved in other cases also and after he obtained bail in all the cases thereafter, it is further submitted that petitioner was involved in other cases and by the time, he could seek bail in those cases by that time, the father of the petitioner became ill. This amply demonstrates that the petitioner were acting leisurely. As such, the Court is not inclined to entertain the modification application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

4. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file fresh bail application.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) sanjeev/- U T