Santosh Das @ Santosh Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27332 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2020 Thana- JHAJHA RAIL P.S. District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Santosh Das @ Santosh Ravidas, Son of Late Sahdev Das @ Sahdev Ravidas, Resident of Village - Teliyadih, Police Station - Jhajha, District - Jamui. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Irshad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Sharda Kumari, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 22-12-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sharda Kumari, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Rail Jhajha P.S. Case No. 19 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner rather the alleged recovery was made from one Gautam Kumar Verma. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 22.01.2020 without any cogent material against him. Ms. Sharda Kumari, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27332 of 2020(3) dt.22-12-2020 2/2 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials coming in the case diary particularly the materials showing recovery of some looted articles from the shop of Gautam Kumar Verma at the instance of this petitioner, the statement of said Gautam Kumar Verma saying that this petitioner had visited his shop and on the pretext of the illness of his wife and requirement of money for that purpose he offered to place the ornaments for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- and these were the looted ornaments and further the material coming in paragraph '274' of the case diary showing that the petitioner has been identified by victim in presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of regular bail to the petitioner. He has also got criminal antecedents and has confessed his involvement in several other cases of similar nature. Prayer for regular bail is, thus, refused. Let the trial be expedited.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.