Raju Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22611 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -99 Year- 2015 Thana -PARSA District- SARAN ====================================================== Raju Kumar, S/o Mahesh Singh, R/o Village-Banghara, P.S -Rajapakar, District- Vaishali (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Dr.M.K.Gautam(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 12-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Parsa P.S Case No. 99 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, 7-8 unknown miscreants looted Pick-Up van loaded with bundle of clothes, plastic pipes and cartoon and threw the informant in chawar. During investigation, the petitioner was apprehended and on the basis of his confessional statement and disclosure made, some looted articles were recovered, as per seizure list vide para 22 and 24 of the case diary. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2015 but he has not been put

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22611 of 2016 (3) dt.12-07-2016 2/2 on T.I.P. The recovered articles have also not been put on T.I.P. and chargesheet has already been submitted under section 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by pointing out the alleged recovery.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the recovery of some looted articles on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner, and as such, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible preferably within 9 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Court.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U