Pappu @ Majid @ Mojid v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15759 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-370 Year-2020 Thana- KISHANGANJ District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Pappu @ Majid @ Mojid Son of Aiyub Resident of Village- Matiyari Ward No.13, P.S.- Jokihat, District- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 13-09-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the accused persons armed with pistol and dagger dispossessed the driver of the informant of the informant's tractor and pickup van. It is stated that the accused driving the looted tractor was caught and he was the petitioner herein.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations as levelled in the F.I.R. are false and concocted. No incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. On an earlier occasion he was the driver of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15759 of 2021(3) dt.13-09-2021 2/2 informant and because of dispute between the informant and him over petitioner's wage that there was differences between the parties and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is in custody since 1.10.2020 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the petitioner being arrested with the looted tractor together with the petitioner having two antecedents, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U T