Bibek Kmar Yadav @ Bibek Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33698 of 2017 (2) dt.21-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33698 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -23 Year- 2017 Thana -SINGHESHWARASHTHAN DistrictMADHEPURA ====================================================== Bibek Kmar Yadav @ Bibek Yadav, S/o Bindo Yadav, resident of VillageKabiyahi, Ward No.14, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 21-07-2017 The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2017 registered for offences punishable under sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 07.02.2017 while the informant was constructing his house alongwith mason then one person came at the house of the informant and told to purchase chips and sand from him when they went at the Plant near Budhwe bridge where sand was lying and informant gave him Rs. 1000/- as advance to that person and thereafter when the informant was urinating then that person leaving his own motorcycle there fled away alongwith motorcycle of the informant.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33698 of 2017 (2) dt.21-07-2017 he is not named in the F.I.R. his name has come during course of investigation. He has been falsely implicated in this case only on suspicion. It has been further stated that petitioner has several cases and all these cases are pending. Petitioner has been languishing in jail since 14.04.2017.

Heard learned APP also.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However, the petitioner may renew prayer for bail after framing of charge in this case.

With the above observation, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) veena/- U T