← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./82702/2025bail granted

Md. Alam @ Md. Hamil v. The State Of Bihar

2025-12-04Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82702 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2025 Thana- LAUHIYANAGAR District- Begusarai ====================================================== 1.

Md. Alam @ Md. Hamil S/o Late Md. Taslim R/o Village - Miyanchak, Tarbanna, P.S - Begusarai Town, District - Begusarai 2.

Manish Kumar S/o Ranjit Singh R/o Village - Hajipur Pipra, P.S - Barauni, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in connection with Lohiya Nagar P.S. Case No. 64 of 2025 dated 28.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 127(3), 115(2), 109(1), 308(3) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioners and coaccused persons took away the son of the informant and when he did not return till night, informant made enquiry from the coaccused who abused her and drove her out. Subsequently, informant came to know that her son was admitted in the

2/4 hospital and he was assaulted by some miscreants. Later on, the son of the informant told the informant that the petitioner and co-accused Aman Kumar took him to a secluded place and petitioner Manish Kumar demanded rupees five lakh and put a rope in his neck and tried to strangulate him, unless rupees five lakh was given to him.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the whole prosecution story is false and fabricated and this fact is apparent from the injury report as mentioned in the rejection order of the petitioners. Injuries are stated to be two incised wounds on parietal and occipital region of skull and one superficial laceration below left ear and on back. But, there is no allegation against the petitioner for causing these injuries. It seems the son of the informant received injuries somewhere else and taking advantage of the injury, the present case has been lodged with concocted story. The parties are co-villagers and are having business relationship and only on that account, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. The falsity is also apparent from the fact that the FIR has been lodged after delay of two days without any explanation. Learned counsel next submits that petitioners are having clean antecedent and chargesheet has

3/4 been submitted. Learned counsel lastly submits that petitioners are in custody since 21.07.2025 and 06.08.2025 respectively.

5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioners.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the doubtful nature of allegation and also considering the period of custody of petitioners and submission of chargesheet, the petitioners, above-named, are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Begusarai / concerned Court, in connection with Lohiya Nagar P.S. Case No. 64 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. and other following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.

(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial Court.

(iii) In case of non-appearance of the petitioners

4/4 on single date or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Shahnawaz/- U T