Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3698/2020dismissed

Shamu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2020-01-21Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3698 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-673 Year-2019 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna ====================================================== Shamu Singh Son of Late Bhagwan Singh, Resident of Village - Surtapur, P.S.- Dinara, District - Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 21-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 673 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., his name has transpired in the present case only on the basis of suspicion. The petitioner is in custody since 16.01.2019 having no criminal antecedent.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3698 of 2020(2) dt.21-01-2020 2/2 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the petitioner being an insider of the house and employed as servant is said to have committed theft of the valuable gold ornaments and cash while he was posted to look after the house and on his confessional statement some amount in cash and gold ornaments with wrist watch are said to have been recovered from his house and petitioner is in custody only since 16.10.2019, considering the nature of the relationship in which the petitioner was working for the informant and has indulged in the alleged occurrence, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of regular bail to the petitioner. The prayer is refused.

The petitioner may, however, renew his prayer for bail after a reasonable period.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/ved U T