Sakal Deo @ Sakaldeo Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20011 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-205 Year-2020 Thana- KARPI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Sakal Deo @ Sakaldeo Kumar Son Of Ashok Mahto R/Village - Baidrabad Ward No. 25, P.S. And Dist. - Arwal.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Neeraj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 02-09-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual court proceeding.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of resumption of normal court proceeding. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Karpi P.S. Case No,. 205 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner in association with co-accused persons looted the motorcycle of the informant and mobile phone of his friend Amit Kumar while they were heading towards Hamd Nagar village. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and has not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20011 of 2021(2) dt.02-09-2021 2/2 committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He submits that petitioner has not been put on T.I. parade and only on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused person, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has six criminal antecedents as has been mentioned in para 3 of this bail petition and he is languishing in custody since 24.11.2020.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that there is allegation regarding recovery of motorcycle of the informant from petitioner, as has been mentioned in para 34 of the case diary and it has come in the case diary that this petitioner have some criminal antecedents.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner in connection with Karpi P.S. Case No. 205 of 2020 to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. 4th , Arwal.

Accordinlgy, prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) GAURAV S./- U T