Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48143/2016rejected

Dayanand Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-06Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48143 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -150 Year- 2016 Thana -KAJI MUHAMMADPUR DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Dayanand Prasad Gupta Son of late Sidheshwar Prasad Gupta Resident of Mohalla- Langartoli, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Roy For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Asharaf Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-03-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. case No. 150 of 2016 under Section 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is not named in the FIR.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Mahesh @ Kaliya was arrested and he is said to have confessed his guilt before the police but Mahesh @ Kaliya did not disclose the name of the petitioner. In pursuance of confession made by Mahesh @ Kaliya, one Mantu Kumar Singh was apprehended and he also confessed his guilt. Mantu Kumar Singh disclosed that he handed over Rs. 9 lacs to Raju, son of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48143 of 2016 (3) dt.06-03-2017 2/2 petitioner, but even Mantu Kumar Singh did not disclose the name of the petitioner. The police after recording the statement of Mantu Kumar Singh raided the house of petitioner and Rs. 5 lacs, which is said to be looted money, was recovered from the house of petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner neither participated in dacoity nor he took the booty, rather, son of the petitioner had taken money from Mantu Kumar Singh and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case only on account of the fact that looted money from the house of petitioner was recovered.

It appears that prayer of petitioner for bail was withdrawn vide order dated 20.08.2016. The petitioner is in jail since 08.05.2016.

Considering the fact that looted money was recovered from the house of petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. If the trial is not concluded within six months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T