← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./38156/2017rejected

Pankaj Sah And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-11Mr. Justice Prakash Chandra Jaiswal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38156 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -197 Year- 2017 Thana -TRIVENIGANJ District- SUPAUL ======================================================

1. Pankaj Sah, S/o Shankar Sah.

2. Julum Kumar, S/o Umesh Yadav.

3. Chandan Kumar, S/o Shubhak Lal Gupta.

All are resident of village - Sandiha Ward No. 14, P.S.-Pasraha, District-Khagaria.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Humayou Ahmad Khan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 11-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners seek bail in Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 197 of 2017 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners along with other accused persons are said to have introduced themselves as ornament cleaner and grabbed the ornaments of the wife of the informant on the pretext of cleaning the same free of cost. The petitioners were apprehended after giving chase and two other accused persons managed to escape.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38156 of 2017 (2) dt.11-08-2017 2/2 that the looted article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioners. Moreover, the case has been compromised between the parties.

The impugned order indicates that the substance meant for cleaning of the ornaments was recovered from the possession of the petitioners which goes to corroborate the prosecution case.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected. However, the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail after four months or after framing of the charge whichever happens earlier.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) Mishra/- U T