Md. Chhotu vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2563 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3853 of 2021
    Arising Out of PS Case No.-198 Year-2018 Thana- BIHARSHARIF District- Nalanda
 ======================================================

Md. Chhotu, Male, aged about 29 years, Son of Late Kamal, Resident of Village - Chainpura, PS - Bihar, District - Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 23-06-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Bihar

PS Case No. 198 of 2018 dated 07.05.2018, instituted under

Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner as

earlier such prayer was rejected by order dated 11.12.2019 passed

in Cr. Misc. No. 46063 of 2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

though there is allegation that from two mobile phones call for Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3853 of 2021 dt.23-06-2021

ransom was made, but only one mobile phone belongs to him and

not the other. It was submitted that the kidnapped boy has also

been recovered and the petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2018.

Learned counsel submitted that similarly situated co-accused Md.

Amir has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench by order dated

16.09.2020 in Cr. Misc. No. 2705 of 2020. Learned counsel

submitted that even the informant has become hostile in the trial

which clearly shows that there is false implication.

6. Learned APP submitted that the mobile of the

petitioner was used for making the ransom call which is enough

proof to show his complicity. Further, it was submitted that even

the informant in her deposition before the Court has reiterated that

the ransom call was made from the mobile phone of the petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that the stand that the petitioner is

similarly situated to co-accused Md. Amir, who has been released

on bail, is also not correct as in the order itself, it has been

mentioned that the argument was that the mobile number from

which call for ransom was made did not belong to him. It was

submitted that this is a major difference in the case as far as the

two persons are concerned and most importantly, the petitioner

carries criminal antecedent and is accused in at least five other Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3853 of 2021 dt.23-06-2021

cases under serious sections of the Indian Penal Code including

Sections 307, 392 and 364A as also the Arms Act, 1959.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

finds that there are no mitigating circumstances since the order

dated 11.12.2019, for granting bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

9. In view of the fact that some witnesses, including the

informant, have been examined, let the Court below expedite the

trial and conclude the same at the earliest preferably within one

year.

10. Registry shall communicate the order to the Court

below forthwith.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T