← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21633/2016rejected

Kailash Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2016-05-19Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21633 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -44 Year- 2015 Thana -MUSAHRI District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Kailash Ram, Son of Sakaldeo Ram, Resident of Village+P.S.-Mushahari Distt- Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 19-05-2016 The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mushahari P.S. Case No. 44 of 2015 registered under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is contended that the name of the petitioner was disclosed in course of confessional statement of co-accused Kishore Paswan, who was apprehended by the police on chase. It is also submitted that co-accused Kishore Paswan has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23rd July, 2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25643 of 2015.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21633 of 2016 (2) dt.19-05-2016 2 / 2 perused the record.

It would be evident from the FIR itself that the accused Kishore Paswan and the petitioner were running away on a motorcycle and when the police chased the petitioner managed to escape, whereas co-accused Kishore Paswan was apprehended. It would further appear from the statement made in paragraph 3 of the present application that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent.

Regard being had to the nature of allegation and the antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him bail for the present even though the co-accused Kishore Paswan has already been granted bail by a Bench of this Court. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.

In case the trial is not concluded within nine months from the date of framing of charge, the petitioner would be entitled to renew his prayer for bail.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- U T