Anil Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9766 of 2015 Arising Out of P.S. Case No. -31 Year- 2015 Thana - GOPALGANJ CITY District - GOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Anil Singh, Son of Late Shankar Singh, R/o Village Hajiapur, Ward No. 16 P.S. + Distt Gopalganj

2. Nausad Alam, Son of Mojibul Rahman, R/o Village Chhawahi, P.S. Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.N. Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-04-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioners seek bail in a case registered under Sections 328, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that while he was waiting for a vehicle, one person, who was going on an Indica car, came and enquired from the informant about his destination and persuaded to accompany him. The informant boarded the vehicle but he was intoxicated and thereafter robbed. The informant disclosed the registration number of the vehicle.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after 12 days of the occurrence, F.I.R. was lodged. The petitioners were not apprehended along with the vehicle. The petitioners had some altercations with the police and, for that, the petitioners have been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9766 of 2015 (3) dt.02-04-2015 2/2 falsely implicated in the case. No theft article was recovered from the possession of the petitioners.

From perusal of the record, it appears that the informant disclosed the vehicle's registration bearing no. WB38Q-1047. On the basis of such, both the petitioners were apprehended and, from their possession, the aforesaid vehicle was recovered.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The petitioners may renew their prayer for bail after six months.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T