Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7030/2025dismissed

Md. Jamil Akhtar @ Md. Jamil v. The State Of Bihar

2025-06-27Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7030 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2022 Thana- BALRAMPUR District- Katihar ====================================================== Md. Jamil Akhtar @ Md. Jamil Son of Sohrab Mallah @ Md. Shohrab Mallah Resident of Village - Sahjna Kajitola (Kapranda), P.S.- Azam Nagar, District - Katihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Kalyan Shankar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with S.T. No. 562 of 2022 arising out of Balrampur (Telta) P.S. Case No. 99 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of Arms Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 18.10.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 67921 of 2023, which reads as follows:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. No. 562 of 2022/ Balrampur, Telta P.S. Case No. 99 of 2022 for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7030 of 2025(4) dt.27-06-2025 2/2 the offence under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of Arms Act.

3. One country made pistol and 6 live cartridges have been recovered from possession of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got twenty criminal antecedents and he is in custody since 12.06.2022.

5. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

7. The District Judge, Katihar is directed to get the trail of all the cases and conclude the same at the earliest including the present case.

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the District Judge, Katihar for its compliance through FAX and e- mail forthwith."

4. The petitioner is accused in 22 more cases.

5. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T