Pintu @ Nikesh @ Rawan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28380 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2020 Thana- KARTAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== PINTU @ NIKESH @ RAWAN S/o Ashok Kumar Singh Resident of VillageHarnarayana, P.S.-Sikarganj, District-East Champaran (Motihari). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-11-2020 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Kartaha P.S. Case No. 28 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, on 18.03.2020, at 2.50 pm, three miscreants having arms entered into the Bank and on the point of pistol looted cash of Rs. 7,07,980/-, hand bag containing Adhar Card and Rs. 400 and also looted cash of Rs. 1,00,500/- from the strong room. Total Cash of Rs. 8,08,480 looted away by the miscreants.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28380 of 2020(2) dt.10-11-2020 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. Petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. Name of petitioner has come in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. Till date petitioner has not been put on Test Identification Parade. Petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2020 having no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that looted articles were recovered from the house of petitioner which has come in para 40 of the case diary.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T