Dismissed¶¶27

Md. Niyamat v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Apr 2024CR. MISC./13276/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Cr. Misc. No.13276 of 2024, order dated 18-04-2024, Ramesh Chand Malviya, J. Bail application rejected; Laukaha P.S. Case 275/2023, Madhubani; offences under Sections 420/34 IPC and Sections 14, 14(c) Foreigners Act, 1946; interception at Indo-Nepal border custom check post, border pillar No. 246; SSB informant Karuna Das, Assistant Deputy Commandant; Myanmar-national woman and children taken towards Delhi via Nepal; petitioners of Darbhanga assisting illegal entry; case-diary based refusal; six-month trial completion directive; renewal of bail before trial court upon lapse.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; petitioners given liberty to renew their bail prayer before the trial court, which shall grant bail if the trial is not concluded within six months of receipt of the order. ¶¶27

Md. Niyamat Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13276 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-275 Year-2023 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani

¶3

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

¶4

Md. Niyamat S/o Late Md. Yusuf R/o Vill - Simri, P.S. - Ghanshyampur, Dist. - Darbhanga

¶5

Md. Farmud S/o Late Md. Yusuf R/o Vill - Simri, P.S. - Ghanshyampur, Dist. - Darbhanga

¶6

Md. Kabir S/o Late Md. Resho R/o Vill - Simri, P.S. - Ghanshyampur, Dist. - Darbhanga

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶10

The Union Of India Delhi

¶11

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶12

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

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manindra Kishore Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammed Arif ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER

¶15

3 18-04-2024

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶17

learned APP for the State.

¶18

The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 275 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 420 / 34 of the IPC and Sections 14, 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

¶19

The summary of the FIR based on typed application of informant Karuna Das is that on 07.10.2023 at around 09.30, the informant alongwith other forces was deployed on custom check post duty near border pillar No. 246. At the same time, a woman with four children and three persons coming from Nepal to India

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13276 of 2024(3) dt.18-04-2024 2/3

¶21

was stopped and interrogated by the forces. During interrogation, the woman told her name as Begum Tahira, husband Zaibul Haque village – battidang district – Icap State Botidang Myanmar and also told that he was going to Delhi via Nepal, UNHCR certificate and Myanmar citizenship certificate were obtained from him. The woman, resident of Myanmar was accompanied by Mohd. Niamat, Mohd. Kadir, Mohd. Farmood who were resident of Darbhanga. In this way, the above three were caught on the Nepal border while illegally taking the foreign woman and her children to Delhi.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioners are in judicial custody since 07.01.2023.

¶23

However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail.

¶24

On perusal of the FIR, case diary, it appears that on the basis of written report of Karuna Das, Assistant Deputy Commandant, SSB FIR was registered under Sections 420 / 34 of IPC and Section 14, 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 against four accused persons including the present petitioners and from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the petitioners were

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13276 of 2024(3) dt.18-04-2024 3/3

¶26

assisting to enter into the Indian territory and the case is also supporting the prosecution and FIR version and so, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶27

Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

¶28

However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, then the petitioner may renew their prayer for bail before the trial court and the trial Court shall grant bail to them.

¶29

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)

¶30

saurabhkr/- U T

Md. Niyamat v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Niyamat v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitu Kumar @ Jitu Vs The State of Bihar

Jai Narayan Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Vishal Kumar Bhagat @ Vishal Bhagat Vs the State of Bihar

Ramkeshwar Patel Vs the State of Bihar

Rajesh Raushan @ Raja Vs The State of Bihar

Ankit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar