Priya Ranjan Kumar Yadav @ Priya Ranjan Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3491 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -111 Year- 2016 Thana -MUSRIGHARARI District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================
1. Priya Ranjan Kumar Yadav @ Priya Ranjan Kumar Rai, S/o Ramswarath Rai, resident of Village Gangapur, P.S.- Musarigharari, DistrictSamastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Arun Kumar Singh -5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 27-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.
Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Musarigharari P.S. Case No. 111 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections-414, 483/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegedly, the petitioner was apprehended when he was trying to flee away after leaving the motorcycle and regarding motorcycle, the petitioner admitted that it was stolen property and further, one stolen motorcycle is at the house, which was also recovered.
Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has been made victim of the circumstances. The
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3491 of 2017 (2) dt.27-02-2017 2/2 motorcycle was not with the petitioner and only on suspicion; he has been caught when he was running away. He has not stated that the motorcycle was stolen one and without any fault, the petitioner is suffering in custody since 12-09-2016.
The learned APP seriously opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner was apprehended with stolen motorcycle and further, on his confession, one another stolen motorcycle was recovered from his house.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the alleged recovery, at present, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after remaining nine months in custody from the date of his remand.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) A.K.V./- U T