Sumit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29675 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2020 Thana- MOKAMAH District- Patna ====================================================== SUMIT KUMAR Son of Sunil Mandal Resident of Village- Garhi, P.S.- Lakhisarai Town, District- Lakhisarai At present C/o- Sakarbar Tola, P.S.- Mokama, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs.Meena Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in virtual court proceeding.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of start of normal functioning of the physical court.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mokama P.S. Case No. 129 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 365 of the IPC.

The FIR of the occurrence of loot and kidnapping is against unknown.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29675 of 2021(4) dt.11-02-2022 2/2 implicated in the present case. He further submits that allegation against the petitioner is false and fabricated. He further submits that only on the basis of suspicion, name of the petitioner has been transpired in the present case. Petitioner is in custody since 15.10.2020.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail on the ground that victim has identified the petitioner in TIP along with other accused. She further submits that co-accused Md. Faizan was not identified by the victim Indrajeet Kumar Bharti. She further submits that apart from that there is sufficient material against the petitioner in the case diary and petitioner carries six more cases of serious nature.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly, the same stands rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) shahzad/- U T