Rajesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40064 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2021 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Rajesh Rai Son Of Sri Ram Bahadur Rai Resident Of Village - Rashulpur, P.S. - Sarairanjan, District - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur- Advocate Mr. Shivam- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sakra P. S. Case No.24 of 2021, instituted for the offences under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2021, has antecedent of two cases and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant alleges that he is posted as Manager in Bandhan Bank and on 08.01.2021 at about 8.05 A.M. when the bank opened, at that time, Assistant Manager and Cashier was present along with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40064 of 2021(3) dt.02-02-2022 2/3 5-6 customers, when a lady entered and behind her back 4 criminals entered carrying pistol and thereafter looted cash nearly Rs.17,09,980/- and thereafter broke the lock of the vault room, but could not break and open vault and thereafter, the criminals started fleeing after looting the bank. Further three accused fled on a pulsar motorcycle while two accused tried to flee on an Apache motorcycle, but the motorcycle did not start. It is next alleged that thereafter one person from the crowd apprehended one accused, but the other accused fired at him causing injury and both the accused fled leaving behind the Apache motorcycle.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. is against unknown. The petitioner has not been put on T.I. Parade, his name came in the confessional statement of coaccused Sudhir Sharma and even after going through the case diary, it would manifest that at best the accused have stated that they used to take his vehicle, as such, the petitioner was not involved in the occurrence. Merely because his vehicle was used in the occurrence, the petitioner came to be implicated. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present bail application with a liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40064 of 2021(3) dt.02-02-2022 3/3 of charge.

Permission is accorded.

Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T