Shashi Kant Verma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9394 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2022 Thana- NAYA RAM NAGAR District- Munger ====================================================== Shashi Kant Verma S/O Late Govind Sah R/O Mohalla- Shastri Nagar, P.SKasim Bazar, District- Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jyoti Ranjan Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 04-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Nayaram Nagar P.S. Case No. 134 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per FIR, when the informant was going on his motorcycle with one Neeraj Keshri, in the meantime, two persons riding on a motorcycle intercepted the motorcycle and both persons snatched Rs. 5 lacs kept in that bag and fled from there. Informant raised suspicion that due to conspiracy of Neeraj Keshri this incident took place.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this present case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9394 of 2023(6) dt.04-12-2023 2/2 The petitioner is not named in FIR rather his name came into light in this case during the course of investigation. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 01.11.2022. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that during investigation, police recovered stolen amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the house of the petitioner and petitioner had not claimed that the said amount is not looted one and also he did not properly explain about the said recovery. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shubham/- U T