Gorakh Nut v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18171 of 2016 (3) dt.25-05-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18171 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -624 Year- 2015 Thana -PHULWARI District- PATNA ====================================================== Gorakh Nut Son of Late Prasad Nut @ Ram Prasad Nut, resident of Village- Khagaul Lakh Par P.S.- Phulwarisharif District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Usha Kumari Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner is in custody since 13.01.2016 in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S.Case No.624 of 2015 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna registered for the offence under Sections 395 and 397 of the IPC. Allegedly in the house of father-in-law of the informant dacoity was committed wherein the informant was assaulted with knife and ornaments valuing Rs.25 lacs, cash of Rs.50,000/- were taken away and when they were fleeing away alarm was raised and then with the help of Mahalla people two persons were caught.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18171 of 2016 (3) dt.25-05-2016 petitioner is in custody since 13.01.2016. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. On the confession of the petitioner, certain jewelry is said to have been recovered. No test identification parade of the recovered jewelry has been conducted by the prosecution. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the name of the petitioner has come in course of investigation and the alleged jewelry is also said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to release the above named petitioner on bail, the same is rejected.

Anyhow the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after completion of nine months in custody. (Sudhir Singh, J) B.Kr./- U T