Munna Sao @ Munna Sah v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5870 of 2016 (3) dt.01-04-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5870 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -592 Year- 2014 Thana -ARA NAWADA District- BHOJPUR ======================================================
1. Munna Sao @ Munna Sah, son of Naresh Sao, resident of Village and Police Station- Bundelkhand, District- Nawadah..... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.A.Khan(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 01-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the Sate.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 592 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, in Mannapuram Gold Finance Limited dacoity was committed wherein six miscreants entered into the Brnach and out of them two were having pistol and in dacoity 14 Kg and 980 grams of Gold and cash of Rs. 2,28,500/- were taken away. During investigation the petitioner was apprehended and from his possession 104 grams gold ornament and cash of Rs. 18,500/- were recovered and further in test identification parade the informant Lokesh Ranjan, witness Gautam Kumar and Satyendra Kumar Gupta identified the petitioner. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5870 of 2016 (3) dt.01-04-2016 has been made victim of circumstances, other co-accused have been allowed bail by another co-ordinate Benches of this Court and as such the petitioner who is suffering in custody since 08.01.2015 deserves sympathetic consideration having no criminal antecedent to which the learned APP opposes.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the alleged recovery and further that the informant and two witnesses have identified the petitioner during test identification parade, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T