Deepak Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40278 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2020 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga ====================================================== DEEPAK PASWAN Son of Late Sukindra Paswan @ Sukinder Paswan Resident of Village - Brahmpur, P.S.- Kamtaul, District - Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Baidya Nath Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Gulnar Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 18-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, while the informant was on way carrying a packet of Rs. 7.74 lacs in cash from one Lalan Kumar to be delivered to one Gaurav Kumar, it is stated that eight accused persons forced his vehicle to stop, searched his vehicle and took away the packet containing the cash. One of the accuseds name appeared from their conversation to be Deepak Bhandari.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name transpired

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40278 of 2021(3) dt.18-02-2022 2/2 in course of investigation in the statement of a co-accused when allegedly part of the stolen cash to the tune of Rs. 54, 600/- was recovered from the house of the petitioner. It is submitted that the same is incorrect for the reason that the amount was the sale proceeds of buffalo which has been sold for repair of the house. The petitioner is in custody since 16.3.2021 and inspite of charge sheet having been submitted, the petitioner has not been put on T.I. Parade.

Heard learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case together with the material that has transpired in course of investigation and the antecedents of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present and the application is rejected. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U