Mukhiya @ Dhanni @ Dilip Sharma @ Munna @ Nitya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15977 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2015 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== MUKHIYA @ DHANNI @ DILIP SHARMA @ MUNNA @ NITYA Son of Shiv Bajan Sharma Resident of Village - Utari Kala @ Upri Kala, P.S.- Hussainabad, District - Plamu (Jharkhand).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Leelawati Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arbind Kumar Pandey (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offences under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case, in short, is that the accused persons loot at the petrol pump of the informant.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 4.9.2018. Chargesheet/prosecution report has been submitted in this case. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of confession of the coaccused. There is no recovery of any looted articles.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15977 of 2019(3) dt.29-04-2019 2/2 On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of statement made by witnesses in paragraphs 14 and 20 of the case diary where the petitioner has been identified on CCTV footage in committing crime. There are 10 criminal cases pending against the petitioner.

Considering the same, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with Nabinagar P.S. Case No. 97/2015. The same is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/- U T