Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22166 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2021 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar Son Of Bachcha Kumar Sharma R/O Village- Turki Sharma Tola, P.S.- Kudhani (Turki O.P.) In The District Of Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Gulnar Begum, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-07-2022 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 APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 388 of 2021 registered for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per FIR on the alleged date and time of occurrence three to four accused persons firstly dashed their motorcycle against the informant's vehicle due to which the informant fell down and thereafter the informant's bag containing Aadhar Card, Pan Card, some ornaments and two mobile phones etc. was snatched away by the accused persons.

The main submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced in his self confessional statement and he has been made accused mainly on the basis of his own statement made

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22166 of 2022(2) dt.20-07-2022 2/2 before the police but he has not been put on Test Identification Parade and the looted motorcycle has been wrongly shown as being recovered from the possession of this petitioner. Further submission is that petitioner has been languishing in jail since 29.10.2021 having clean antecedent.

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

Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and the seizure list attached to the FIR. The present case relates to loot and as per the seizure memo attached to the FIR, the looted motorcycle is said to have been recovered from the shop of present petitioner. Considering the recovery of the looted vehicle from the possession of this petitioner, I find the petitioner's prayer to be not fit for bail. Accordingly, his bail prayer stands rejected. Petitioner may renew his prayer after framing of charge in his case before the Court below. If he avails the said liberty then the learned Court below will decide his regular bail prayer without being prejudiced with present order according to merit. (Shailendra Singh, J) sangam/- U T