Mukesh Sada v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31453 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-654 Year-2020 Thana- BEGUSARAI TOWN District- Begusarai ====================================================== MUKESH SADA SON OF YOGENDRA SADA R/O MOHALLAJHOPARPATTI (LOHIANAGAR), POKHARIA, P.S.- TOWN, DISTRICTBEGUSARAI. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Onkar Nath For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2022 Heard Mr. Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Town (Begusarai) P.S. Case No. 654 of 2020 (G.R. No. 3992 / 2020) registered for the offence under Section 394 of the I.P.C. As per the First Information Report, three miscreants accosted the informant and after causing head injury to the informant by means of sharp weapon, they looted a sum of Rs. 40000/- cash, laptop and other articles on the date of occurrence at about 1.30 am in the night. The date of occurrence is 27-112020.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31453 of 2021(4) dt.03-03-2022 2/3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case during the course of investigation and he has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 01 / 12 / 2020 and up till now he has not been put on Test Identification Parade.
On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State referring to the case diary submits that there are two eye witnesses, who specifically stated that upon hulla being raised by the informant they came out from the shop and identified the petitioner as one of the accused persons who assaulted the informant and looted away his valuables. Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties, taking into consideration the materials available on record and the fact that prima facie evidence has come against the petitioner during the course of investigation and the petitioner has got criminal antecedent also, as such, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of regular bail is rejected.
However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for regular bail after nine months from today if the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31453 of 2021(4) dt.03-03-2022 3/3 trial does not show any progress.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T