Riju Nat @ Raju Nat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19691 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-540 Year-2021 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== RIJU NAT @ RAJU NAT Son of kanhiya Lal Nat @ Kanhiya Nat Resident of Village - Brahmpur, P.S.- Brahmpur, Distt.- Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Suresh Pd. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-07-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in Jagdishpur P.S. case no. 540 of 2021 registered for the offence punishable under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, three accused persons riding on a motorcycle snatched away a bag, mobile ID card, driving licence and cash of Rs 22000/- etc from the possession of the informant when he was returning his home after performing his duty. The main submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as the alleged recovered articles which are stated to be looted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19691 of 2022(2) dt.19-07-2022 2/2 articles, have not been put on TI parade, against the petitioner there is no evidence, mainly on the basis of suspicion and his criminal antecedent, he has been made accused in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 01.01.2022.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

Heard both sides and perused the FIR. Present case relates to loot committed with the informant who is manger of South Bihar Gramin Bank and as per allegation three accused persons stopped the informant while he was returning from his office and thereafter looted articles from his possession. The order of the learned court below shows that in following with the statement made by the petitioner, some looted articles were recovered and petitioner has criminal antecedent of four cases.

Considering these facts, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner does not deserve privilege of bail and accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

(Shailendra Singh, J) s.hassan/- U T