Manoj Singh Bhokta @ Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25039 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2011 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== MANOJ SINGH BHOKTA @ MANOJ KUMAR Son of Suryadev Singh @ Sukhdev Singh Bhokta Resident of Village - Chaparwar, P.S.- Bankeybazar, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinod Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 20-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 147, 148, 149 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code, section 17 of the CLA Act and sections 13, 16, 18 and 20 of the U.A.P. Act 1967. As per the prosecution case, 23 named accused persons including the petitioner herein and 50-60 unknown persons belonging to the MCC group are stated to have kidnapped three villagers. It is stated that subsequently the JCB machine etc. being used in construction of bridge etc. were put on fire.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He was never declared an absconder. The allegations are general

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25039 of 2021(3) dt.20-12-2021 2/2 and omnibus in nature. He has no criminal antecedent and his case stands on a similar footing to that of Dhanik Lal Mandal and Rupan Yadav who have been enlarged on bail vide order dated 8.5.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. no.11410 of 2015 and order dated 5.12.2020 passed in Cr.Misc. no.20572 of 2020. The petitioner is in custody since 1.10.2020 and has no criminal antecedent.

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that in a case/F.I.R. registered on 14.8.2011, the petitioner continued to abscond and was taken into custody on 1.10.2020. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case together with the period for which the petitioner remained absconding inspite of the F.I.R. having been registered in the year 2011, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

Bibhash/- (Partha Sarthy, J)