Anandi Goswami @ Anand Goswami @ Anandiya v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37922 of 2016 (2) dt.22-09-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37922 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -27 Year- 2016 Thana -BHAGALPUR GRP CASE DistrictBHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Anandi Goswami @ Anand Goswami @ Anandiya, Son of Shri Ramanand Goswami, resident of Janidih, P.S. Gogha (Kahalgaon), DistrictBhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Amit Kumar Rakesh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 22-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bhagalpur G.R.P.S. Case No. 27 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 307, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, amount of Rs. 3560/- was pick pocketed from the pocket of the informant, when he asked the petitioner and others then, they started assaulting him, further they assaulted the sister of the informant who was pregnant, however, the passengers came, then one miscreant fled away after jumping from the train and two were caught with the help of Police and from the pocket of the petitioner pick pocketed amount, identity card of the informant was recovered.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37922 of 2016 (2) dt.22-09-2016 Submission is of false implication and that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, he has been made victim of circumstances, the Police has shown wrong recovery and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes by pointing out the alleged recovery.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the alleged recovery from the pocket of the petitioner and further considering his behaviour as he brutally assaulted the informant and his sister, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner, if at not fault, may renew his prayer of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T