Patna High CourtCR. MISC./10620/2017rejected

Harendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-23Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10620 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -215 Year- 2016 Thana -MOTIHARI TOWN DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Harendra Kumar Son of Kishundeo Sah, Resident of Village- Gobari, P.S.- Banjariya, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Tiwari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2017 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner disclosing the criminal antecedent of the petitioner. Let it be kept on record.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 215/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the tablet mobile of the informant was stolen away and during investigation the said tablet mobile was recovered from the house of the petitioner and for that the petitioner is in custody since 19.11.2016.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10620 of 2017 (2) dt.23-03-2017 2/2 Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner was not caught on the spot nor seen by any one. He purchased the said tablet mobile from Biku Mian of Khuda Nagar without having any knowledge that the said mobile is stolen property and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration, to which Learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner has not disclosed before the Investigation Officer at once that the said mobile was purchased from any one. Now, after lapse of time he is claiming in such way.

Considering the alleged recovery, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months of his custody. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rakhi U T