Sheru @ Sheru Mian @ Sirajuddin v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.202 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -104 Year- 2015 Thana -CHAKAI District- JAMUI ====================================================== Sheru @ Sheru Mian Sirajuddin, Son of Late Razzaque, Resident of Village- Ramchandi Het, Chakai, P.S. Chakai, District Jamui. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Lal (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 08-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chakai P.S. Case No. 104 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the informant having Rs. 69,250/- and the deceased having Rs. 73,000/- were robbed by the petitioner, tempo driver and one un-known and in the occurrence the unknown person who was sitting in the back sit of tempo, shot Jamshed and the petitioner was instigating to kill him and further the tempo driver gave 2-3 blow with danda resulting Jamshed died at the spot.
Submission is of false implication and against the petitioner there is no specific allegation, he is suffering in custody
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.202 of 2016 (3) dt.08-03-2016 2/2 since 11.09.2015, he has not taken any money and nothing has been recovered from his possession, the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and, as such, he deserves sympathetic consideration, to which the learned A.P.P. opposes by submitting that in the process of robbing, Jamshed was killed and further the amount was snatched away by the petitioner and other two coaccused from the deceased as well as from the informant. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U T