Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.51534 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -296 Year- 2016 Thana -JAHANABAD District- JEHANABAD ======================================================
1. Manish Kumar Son of Shri Dhanraj Singh Resident of Village - Gangachak, P.S. - Masaurhi, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Murlidhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 296 of 2016 for the offence punishable under sections 365, 302, 201, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though the F.I.R. had been lodged under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code but later on Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code have been added. So far kidnapping part is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner and there is allegation that on the basis of the confessional statement of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51534 of 2016 (3) dt.19-01-2017 2/2 petitioner, motor cycle of the kidnapped boy was recovered from the possession of one Rahul Kumar and that Rahul Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court and as such there is nothing against the petitioner and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 29.07.2016. Heard learned A.P.P. also who has opposed the prayer for bail.
Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the court below itself after framing of charge and the court below after perusal of the materials available on the record and in the case diary will dispose of the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the same day.
With the aforesaid observation, this application for bail is rejected.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Amin/- U