Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17407/2019rejected

Tanik @ Radhey Shyam @ Radhe Shyam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2019-07-22Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17407 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2017 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna ====================================================== TANIK @ RADHEY SHYAM @ RADHE SHYAM KUMAR Son of Ashok Ram Resident of Village - Barbigha, Jafarpur, P.S.- Barbigha, Distt - Sheikhpura. At present Baiman Tola, P.S.- Ram Krishna Nagar, Distt - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Kadamkuna P.S. Case No. 192 of 2017 registered under section 392 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of Sub-Judge-VII-cumA.C.J.M., Patna. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ill motive. Petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2017. Further submission is that nothing has been recovered from his possession.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17407 of 2019(4) dt.22-07-2019 2/2 petitioner has criminal antecedent. On perusal of records, it appears that the petitioner is involved in many cases with regard to robbery and also confessed the crimes committed by him. Further submission is that the witnesses have also supported the version of the prosecution. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected.

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T