Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22757 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-550 Year-2019 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== CHANDAN KUMAR Son of Satendra Prasad Resident of Village - Nasirnachak, P.S.- Dhanarua, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-11-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application for regular bail arises out of Barh P.S. Case No. 550 of 2019 disclosing the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

The First Information Report was registered against unknown with allegation that a gang of criminals, upon overtaking the vehicle of the informant snatched valuables worth Rs.15,40,000/-.

During course of investigation, on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, names of the petitioner and other persons emerged.

It appears that during the course of investigation

2/4 involvement of a gang was detected responsible for commission of numerous similar offences across the State of Bihar. In the aforesaid background, when the matter was taken up by this Court on 30.09.2021, following order was passed:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State.

After hearing briefly learned counsel for the petitioner when this Court called upon Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State to inform this Court as to the materials against the petitioner, learned APP has informed that he had a talk with the S.H.O., Barh police station who has informed that this petitioner and the members of his gang who are about 15 in numbers are involved in a large number of crimes and it is their modus operandi to act so fastly that they enter into different districts in a short span of time and commit the robbery, the gang has about 15 members.

Learned APP submits that though the learned court below while rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner has taken note of the fact that in paragraph '15' of the supplementary case diary about 19 cases are mentioned against this petitioner and the co-accused, the S.H.O., Barh may furnish some more information with regard to the criminal antecedents of the petitioner after seeking information from the different nearby districts.

3/4 the further materials with regard to the criminal antecedents.

Considering the gravity of the offence involved in this case, this Court grants four weeks time to the State to collect the information with regard to the cases, if any, lodged against this petitioner in different nearby districts. This Court expects that the Superintendent of Police of the different districts from where the information are to be obtained shall cooperate and provide necessary information to the S.H.O., Barh within the stipulated period.

The S.H.O., Barh may send the request to the districts from where he wants to get the information together with a copy of this order. List this case after four weeks i.e. on 1st November, 2021."

In compliance of the said order, a report has been submitted by the Inspector-cum-SHO, Barh, Patna from which it appears that the petitioner is implicated in 19 cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that after having been arrested in the present case, the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in many other cases and has been remanded to custody. He has argued that in similar circumstance co-accused Ashlok Yadav @ Ishlok Kumar @ Shlok Kumar has been allowed regular bail by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19642 of 2021.

4/4 Considering the facts and circumstances and serious nature of other criminal cases pending against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him privilege of regular bail. This application is accordingly rejected.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) uday/- U T