Rahul Kumar Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2532 of 2017 (2) dt.13-02-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2532 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -125 Year- 2016 Thana -BENIPATTI District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Sahni, Son of Sushil Sahni, Resident of Kapi, P.S.- Katra, Distt- Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Soban Asghar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ahtash Ali Khan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 13-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Benipatti P.S. Case No. 125 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 411, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, two persons with a view to help the informant took the ATM of the informant and also of Rakesh Das and thereafter handed over the ATM of Akbar Ansari and then the informant raised alarm and caught both the miscreants including the petitioner and further from possession of the petitioner amount of Rs. 4,000/- which was withdrawn and ATM card of Rakesh Das were recovered.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is in custody since 04.08.2016, co-accused Pintu Kumar has already been allowed bail by the learned court below itself. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2532 of 2017 (2) dt.13-02-2017 petitioner has been made victim of circumstances and nothing has been recovered from conscious possession and the Police forcibly has shown the recovery of ATM card and cash of Rs. 4,000/-, chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the alleged recovery from possession of the petitioner, at present, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after remaining further four months in custody. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T