Ranjan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 50751 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -110 Year- 2015 Thana -BIHIYA District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Ranjan Yadav Son of Hulash Yadav, Resident of Village - Dawan, P.S. - Jagdishpur, District - Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. A.P.Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

26-11-2015 Heard Sri Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner, who is in custody since 05-06-2015 in Bihiya P.S. Case no. 110 of 2015 registered for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently section 411 of the I.P.C. was also added, has prayed for grant of bail. It was submitted by Sri Singh, learned senior counsel that the petitioner has falsely been implicated and he was remanded in the present case from another case. He submits that the alleged mobile was recovered from the house of the petitioner, but it was neither from the conscious possession of the petitioner nor the number was tallying. However, some figure was corrected

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50751 of 2015 (3) dt.26-11-2015 2/2 in the seizure list and thereafter, the petitioner was made accused in the present case. He submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown.

Besides hearing, I have also perused the materials available on record. On examining paragraph - 3 of the petition, it is evident that the petitioner is accused in number of cases, however; it was submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already been granted bail in other cases, which has also been stated in the petition. Be that as it may, keeping in view the nature of accusation, I do not find any ground for extending the privilege of bail.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T