Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25686/2020bail rejected

Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-11-23Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25686 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-450 Year-2019 Thana- NAANPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Manish Kumar Son Of Bharat Singh Resident Of Village - Majhaur, P.S. - Nanpur, District - Sitamarhi ... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Addl Public Prosecutor ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-11-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in Nanpur Police Station Case No. 450 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under sections 392 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleges that on 4.12.2019 at 6 pm when he was returning to the house after closing the Jewellry shop three unknown miscreants covering their face pushed him and ran away with his motorcycle. In the dickey of the motorcycle, there was key of the shop and Godrej shelf and some ornaments.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of his confessional statement made in Nanpur Police Station Case No. 50/2020. Charge sheet has also been filed in the case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25686 of 2020(3) dt.23-11-2020 2/2 Informant has not identified the petitioner in the Test Identification Parade. Petitioner is in custody since 3.4.2020. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in course of investigation on the disclosure made by the petitioner a bag containing cap, muffler and 37 keys were recovered by the side of road in a bush. Said articles have been identified by the informant to be stolen article. Further, as the miscreants had covered their face at the time of committing office as per the FIR, there is no liklihood of their identification by the informant in the TIP.

In view of the nature of allegation as well as the fact that recovery of stolen article has been made on the disclosure made by this petitioner, his prayer for bail is refused. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T