Allowed

Md. Sohil @ Sohil @ Md Sohail @ Sohil Alam @ Sohail v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC18 Sept 2024CR. MISC./48811/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Sections 395/397 IPC for dacoity; petitioner in custody since March 2021 without trial conclusion and no recovery or TIP. Court held incarceration solely on criminal antecedents unjustified and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Session Judge-III, Kishanganj, subject to stated conditions.

Md. Sohil @ Sohil @ Md Sohail @ Sohil Alam @ Sohail Vs The… — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48811 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2019 Thana- KOCHADHAMAN District- Kishanganj

¶3

====================================================== Md. Sohil @ Sohil @ Md Sohail @ Sohil Alam @ Sohail Son of Mohsin @ Mohsim R/O Vill.- Kathamatha, P.S.- Kochadhaman, Dist.- Kishanganj

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 18-09-2024

¶11

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

¶12

The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 271 of 2022, arising out of Kochadhaman P.S. Case No. 32 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Based upon the fardbeyan of the informant, the prosecution alleges that in the fateful night of 06.02.2019, unknown dacoits entered into the house of the informant and committed dacoity and also assaulted one Matasir , due to which he sustained grievous injury.

¶14

Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the FIR has been instituted against unknown miscreants. However, during the course of investigation, the name of the

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48811 of 2024(3) dt.18-09-2024 2/3

¶16

petitioner has been implicated only on suspicion. Neither the petitioner has been put on TIP nor any incriminating materials has been recovered. Moreover, the petitioner has been incarcerated since 22.03.2021. Irrespective of the long period of incarceration over a period of three years and six months, till date, the trial has not been concluded and, as such, keeping the petitioner behind the bar would be unjustified.

¶17

On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner is having 14 criminal antecedent over his head and most of the criminal offence are identical in nature, which shows the involvement of the petitioner in identical nature of crime.

¶18

Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the period of custody and the fact that there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. Moreover, keeping the petitioner behind the bar without there being any cogent material, only on the basis of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner does not appear to be justified, let the petitioner, named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Session Judge-III, Kishanganj in connection

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48811 of 2024(3) dt.18-09-2024 3/3

¶20

with Sessions Trial No. 271 of 2022, arising out of Kochadhaman P.S. Case No. 32 of 2019, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close relatives of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:-

¶21

(i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the

¶22

trial.

¶23

(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.

¶24

(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial.

¶25

(iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.

¶26

(v) The court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take immediate step for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this purpose or in the name of verification.

¶27

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶28

shivank/-

Md. Sohil @ Sohil @ Md Sohail @ Sohil Alam @ Sohail v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Sohil @ Sohil @ Md Sohail @ Sohil Alam @ Sohail 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

Hare Ram Roy Vs The State of Bihar

Siyaram Choudhary @ Sitaram Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Damodar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Gulab Khan Vs The State of Bihar

Saurav Kumar @ Saurav Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Gautam Ram @ Gautam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar