Rohit Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25893 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2024 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East Champaran ====================================================== Rohit Kumar Sah Son of Shyam Sundar Sah Resident of Village- Dumariya, P.S.- Mahammadpur, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Madhurendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Murli Dhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 24-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Govindganj P.S. Case No. 24 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per FIR, the petitioner was arrested near ATM of SBI in suspicious condition. He was searched and 58 ATM Cards were recovered from his pocket.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the search and seizure was not made in presence of independent witnesses.
5. On the other hand, learned APP opposed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25893 of 2024(3) dt.24-07-2024 2/2 prayer for bail by submitting that the independent witnesses present at the spot were not ready to become the seizure list witness and it was the reason that the search was conducted in presence of police personnel. He has also submitted that the statements of ATM Cardholders have been recorded in paragraph no. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the case diary. They have stated that their ATM Cards were stolen away and money from their bank accounts was also withdrawn.
6. A huge number of ATM Cards were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The owner of the ATM Cards have stated that money was withdrawn from their bank accounts. It appears that the petitioner is involved in Cybercrime. He does not deserve the privilege for bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T