Allowed

Pappu Mian @ Md. Jahangir Alam v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC20 Feb 2019CR. MISC./7818/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the petitioner accused under IPC and Arms Act provisions. The court addressed objections regarding criminal antecedents and alleged recovery of weapons, ordering release on a bond with sureties and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount subject to specified conditions.

Pappu Mian @ Md. Jahangir Alam Vs The State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7818 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2017 Thana- EKANGARSARAI District- Nalanda

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Pappu Mian @ Md. Jahangir Alam Son of Md. Latif Resident of Village - Kashaba, P.S.- Civil Line, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shyamal Prakash For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 20-02-2019

¶12

Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and

¶13

learned counsel for the State.

¶14

The petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2017 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 746 of 2017 arising out of Ekangar Sarai P.S. Case No. 169 of 2017 for the offence registered under Sections 399, 401, 402 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1-b) a, 26/35 of the Arms Act.

¶15

Learned counsel for the informant is also present, who submits that the petitioner after having been granted bail in criminal appeal, which is pending, the petitioner has been indulged in such acts leading to registration of the present case. It is further submitted that one pistol and one live cartridge apart from a mobile, is said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, he is not entitled to the

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7818 of 2019(3) dt.20-02-2019 2/3

¶17

privilege of bail as he is clearly having criminal antecedent which does not allow him to further indulgence by this Court.

¶18

A counter affidavit has been filed in this case stating therein that except three cases, the petitioner has also been accused in two other cases and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of regular bail.

¶19

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier case, in which, the petitioner was granted bail in criminal appeal, the informant is a police officer, who is out an out having a vendatta against the present petitioner and has nabbed him in connection with the present case without there being any valid reasons and the alleged recoveries were not from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that though the antecedents have already been indicated in paragraph-3 of the application, the petitioner undertakes to cooperate in all further investigation and shall also appear before the trial court as and when required. It is further submitted that charge has already been framed in this case but he is unable to indicate the exact date.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two

¶21

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7818 of 2019(3) dt.20-02-2019

¶22

3/3

¶23

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda in connection with Sessions Trial No. 746 of 2017 arising out of Ekanagar Sarai P.S. Case No. 169 of 2017, subject to the following conditions:-

¶24

One of the bailors will be his own blood relative, preferably, father, mother, son, brother, sister and/or his wife.

¶25

The petitioner shall not indulge himself in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

¶26

The petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of his failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned court concerned.

¶27

The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶28

(Anjana Mishra, J)

¶29

Jagdish/-

¶30

U T

Pappu Mian @ Md. Jahangir Alam v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Mian @ Md. Jahangir Alam v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rina Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Pramod Yadav @ Pramod Kr. Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Sami Alam Vs The State Of Bihar

Birendra Yadav and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Binita Thakur Vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar