Bhageran Manjhi @ Raju Kumar Manjhi @ Raj Kumar Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31954 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-431 Year-2020 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna ====================================================== BHAGERAN MANJHI @ RAJU KUMAR MANJHI @ RAJ KUMAR MANJHI Son of Paisath @ Jagdish Manjhi Resident of Mohalla - Railway Line Mushahari, P.S.- Digha and District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar 2, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-03-2022 Heard Mr. Manish Kumar 2, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 431 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

The allegation, as per the First Information Report is that a theft was committed in the house of the informant and the petitioner along with other accused persons have been identified in the CCTV footage. It has been alleged that cash of Rs.1,25,000/- and other articles are said to have been stolen by the accused persons.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31954 of 2021(4) dt.08-03-2022 2/3 Learned counsel for he petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of CCTV footage and he has not been put on Test Identification Parade. He further submits that no looted article has been recovered from possession of the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 29.1.2021. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State referring to the case diary submits that during course of investigation it has come to light that a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- has been stolen and the petitioner has been identified in the CCTV footage. He further submits that the petitioner is habitual offender and three more cases of similar nature and under the Excise Act are pending against him.

Regards being had to the submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record, the fact that the petitioner has been identified in the CCTV footage and he happens to be a habitual offender, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present application for bail is rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31954 of 2021(4) dt.08-03-2022 3/3 However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial does not register any substantial progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) S.Ali/- U T