Bishnu Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22227 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2019 Thana- NASRIGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== BISHNU RAY Son of Sudarshan Ray @ Sudarshan Rai Resident of Village - Nibhary Dihara, P.S.- Sikrahata, District - Bhojpur at present resident of Village -Bishnu Nagar, Bank Colony, Ara, P.S. - Ara Nawadah, District - Bhojpur.

Versus

... ... Petitioner/s THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prabhat Kumar Singh :

Mr.Surendra Kumar Singh :

Ms.Priyadarshini Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shantunu Kumar (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-10-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 174 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. A Bank Assistant of South Bihar Gramin Bank, Amiyawar Branch is the informant, who has alleged in the F.I.R. that on 13.08.2019 at about 2.40. P.M., two persons forcibly entered into the cash counter and looted cash and mobile phone of the informant at the point of pistol. On scream for help having been raised, several persons standing outside the Bank attempted to chase the persons, who, however, managed to flee away, although they threw the bag containing looted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22227 of 2020(3) dt.12-10-2020 2/3 amount, while fleeing away.

It is evident from the F.I.R. that it was lodged against unknown. It, however, appears from paragraph 23 of the case diary that the miscreants had planned to commit loot in the Bank. The confessional statements of the persons, whose names surfaced in course of investigation, indicate involvement of this petitioner and others in commission of the offence which corroborate prosecution's case.

In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner, privilege of regular bail for the present. This application is dismissed.

The facts and circumstances of the case, however, it is observed that if there is no substantial progress at the trial, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

It is indicated that defect, if any, shall be removed within two months.

Since there is a lockdown, the Court has considered it appropriate to adopt following procedure for communication of the present order:- (i) The order, which has been dictated during the course of the proceedings of virtual Court, shall be

communicated to me on my e-mail I.D. by the Secretary. (ii) The corrected copy of the order shall be transmitted by me from my e-mail I.D. to the Secretary, which shall be treated to be the authentic copy of the order passed by this Court today in the present proceeding.

(iii) Hard copy of the order, duly signed by me, shall be preserved in my residential office for documentation and future use, if any.

(iv) Let a copy of the order be communicated to the learned court below through e-mail or any other appropriate electronic mode by the Registry.

Let steps be taken by the Registry for uploading of the present order without compromising with the norms of social-distancing.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) AKASH/- U T