Khurshid Alam @ Md. Khurshed @ Md.Khursid Alam vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Khurshid Alam, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 599 of 2017. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the petitioner's submission that the recovered amount was personal and the incident stemmed from a road rage dispute. The Court directed the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Purnea. The ratio decidendi is that in cases involving allegations of impersonation and extortion, the court will consider the petitioner's defense and the circumstances presented when deciding on bail, especially when the recovered amount is claimed as personal property and the incident is attributed to a personal dispute.

Facts

The petitioner, Khurshid Alam, sought bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 599 of 2017, registered under Sections 363, 393, 419, 420, and 170 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was in custody. The allegation was that the petitioner, claiming to be a GST Officer, demanded Rs. 50,000 from the informant who was transporting grocery items. The petitioner allegedly snatched Rs. 400 from the informant's pocket. Local people apprehended the petitioner and assaulted him. Rs. 410 was recovered from the petitioner's possession. The petitioner contended that the recovered Rs. 410 was his personal money and that a quarrel ensued due to road rage, leading to his false implication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 599 of 2017, registered under Sections 363, 393, 419, 420, and 170 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the allegations of impersonation as a GST Officer and extortion. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the recovered amount of Rs. 410 was his personal money and that the incident arose from a road rage dispute, leading to his false implication by the informant. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State (Opposite Party) regarding the bail application.