Md. Meeraj @ Md. Meraj vs. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6707 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2022 Thana- INDUSTRIAL AREA District- Vaishali ======================================================

Md. Meeraj @ Md. Meraj Son of Mumtaz @ Late Mumtaz Ahmed Resident of village- Murgiya Chak, PS- Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali at Hajipur

Versus

... ... Petitioner/s

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niranjan Parihar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

4 26-03-2025 Heard Mr. Niranjan Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nagendra Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 30.08.2022 in connection with S.T. No-323/2024 arising out of Industrial area P.S. Case No. 111/2022, F.I.R. dated 05.07.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A), 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13.07.2023 passed in Cr. Misc No. 11577/2023 and again the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc No. 70063 of 2024.

3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner

alongwith other co-accused persons tried to abduct the informant namely Ranjit Kumar @ Pappu Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitts that for the same occurrence two FIR's have been instituted, one by the informant and second by the police officials. It appears from the FIR that both FIR's are contradictory with each other. He further submits that statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C./183 of B.N.S.S in which he has mentioned the name of this petitioner but from perusal of the statement of victim, it appears that he has also taken name of Saurav and Mukesh and similarly situated co-accused person namely Mukesh Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 54858 of 2023 and other co-accused persons namely Manish Kumar, Saurabh Mishra @ Saurabh Kumar, Aniket Kumar, Vikash Kumar Jha @ Vikash Jha, Sumit Kumar @ Sunil Kumar have been granted bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 17.07.2023, 20.07.2023, 26.06.2023, 14.09.2023, 04.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc Nos. 15857 of 2023, 18963 of 2023, 34314 of 2023, 59996 of 2023 and 42359 of 2024. Vide order dated

31.01.2025, a report was called for with regard to the present stage of the trial. Report of the learned Trial Court dated 07.02.2025 reveals that altogether seven witnesses in the present prosecution and out of seven witnesses, one witness has been examined.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R and apart from that the petitioner carries three criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner is on bail in two cases out of three cases.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Court, report of the learned Trial Court and the period of custody, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ADJ-VIIth, Vishali at Hajipur in connection with Industrial area P.S. Case No. 111/2022, subject to the following

conditions:-

i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that 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 step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

Suruchi/-