Badal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23026 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2019 Thana- LAUKAHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== BADAL KUMAR S/o Late Mahendar Paswan @ Mahendra Paswan Resident of Village- Nirmli, P.S.- Nirmli, Distt- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-10-2020 Heard Mr. Ratnakar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State through video conferencing.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case No. 191 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The allegation as per the First Information Report is that when the informant was returning to his village on Motorcycle, he was accosted by four unknown persons riding on two Motorcycles who snatched purse containing Rs.7,000/- cash, papers of the vehicle and Mobile phone of Redme company of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23026 of 2020(4) dt.20-10-2020 2/2 and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and no incriminating material has been recovered from his possession.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and referring to the case diary submits that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents and three cases of similar nature are pending against him and his name has come in the confessional statement of co-accused who vividly described the occurrence committed by him and others.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record and the fact that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for regular bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial does not show any progress. S.Ali/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U T