Prabhat Kumar @ Golu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22115 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2021 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== OM PRAKASH @ UPENDRA Son of Jagarnath Singh Resident of Village - Sahdullahpur, Ward No. -6, Police Station - Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 27909 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2021 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== PRABHAT KUMAR @ GOLU S/o Pappu Kumar Singh Resident of VillageSimari, Police Station Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22115 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 27909 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Gulnar Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 12-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The two petitioners in the two applications have prayed for grant of regular bail in a case registered under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, three accused persons carrying arms committed bank robbery and took away Rs.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22115 of 2022(3) dt.12-01-2023 2/2 1,80,000/- with them.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR was registered against unknown. The petitioners were falsely implicated in course of investigation. Inspite of being in custody since 17.8.2021 and 19.1.2022, chargesheet has been submitted in the case without putting the petitioners on T.I. parade. Contrary to the allegations, no incriminating article has been recovered from their possession.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that while cash and arms were recovered from possession of the petitioner Om Prakash, cash was recovered from the house of Prabhat Kumar @ Golu. They also have criminal antecedents.

In the facts of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and the application is rejected. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail after six months or after framing of charge, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Spd/- U T