Vakil Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.48851 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2018 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Bhabhua (Kaimur) ====================================================== Vakil Paswan S/o Late Shri Ram Paswan, R/o Vill.- Kurtha, P.S.- Bhagwanpur (Belaon), District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandrasen Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-08-2018 Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandrasen Prasad Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, who is in custody since 07.05.2018 in Bhagwanpur ( Belaon) P.S. Case No.91 of 2018 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 332, 333,353, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, several persons have been made accused in the F.I.R. including the petitioner on vague accusation, as if, the petitioner was one of the members, who assaulted the officials, who had arrived for removal of encroachment. He further submits that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48851 of 2018(3) dt.20-08-2018 2/2 many other accused persons have already been granted bail. Sri Chandrasen Prasad Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. Besides hearing, I have also perused the material on record, particularly the F.I.R. In this case, the accusation is that the administation had gone to remove encroachment, whereupon the officials were attacked by the mob and the petitioner is also one of the members of the mob. In such cases, the Court may not take lenient view, otherwise it will amount to encourage others.
Accordingly, I do not find any ground to pass favourable order presently. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completion of nine months in custody.
With above observation, the petition stands dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar, J.) nawalkrs/- U T