Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39287/2016rejected

Wajir Alam @ Wazir Alam @ Guddu v. The State Of Bihar

2016-10-21Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39287 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -31 Year- 2016 Thana -SAHAJITPUR District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Wajir Alam @ Wazir Alam @ Guddu Son of Lal Mohammad Resident of Village -Dhangarha, Police Station - Baniyapur, District - Saran (Chapra) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Roy For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Atul Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sahajitpur P.S. Case No.31 of 2016 instituted for the offences under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

An FIR was lodged making an allegation of theft. It has been alleged that on 30.4.2016 the informant and others were on official duty and were collecting the revenue of electric charge from rural franchisee. At about 1.45 P.M. four persons have entered into the office of the Junior Engineer and on the strength of pistol they have committed robbery and also assaulted the inmates. They have also looted the mobile. Admittedly the same was found in the possession of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39287 of 2016 (3) dt.21-10-2016 petitioner which is apparently clear from paragraph 49 of the case diary.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another person, namely, Raju Kumar Kushwaha, who was also found with the mobile has been granted bail by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No.28378 of 2016 by order dated 27.9.2016. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph 53 of the case diary where it has been stated that mobile has been recovered from the field.

Looking to the nature of allegation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completion of nine months in jail custody.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U T