Sakal Deo @ Sakaldeo Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28050 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2020 Thana- KARPI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== SAKAL DEO @ SAKALDEO KUMAR Son of Late Ashok Mahto Resident of Village- Baidrabad, Ward No. 25, P.S. and District- Arwal. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Nitya Nand Neeraj For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Kanhaiya Kishore (App.100) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.) 16-06-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 414 and 34, of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that on 12.10.2020 at about 11:50 hours on the basis of confessional statement of petitioner in Kapri P.S. Case No. 205/2020, one stolen motorcycle was recovered in the house of his brother-inlaw, Ashish Kumar at village Pakari and petitioner also used to keep stolen article and take shelter in the house of his brotherin-law. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28050 of 2021(2) dt.16-06-2021 2/2 he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner is in custody since 13.10.2020.
Learned APP submits that six criminal cases have been registered against this petitioner and it appears that petitioner is a habitual criminal being involved in several heinous offences.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completing 1 year in judicial custody. (S. Kumar, J) Sanjay/- U T