Bhagwan Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30087 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2019 Thana- ALOULI District- Khagaria ====================================================== BHAGWAN DAS Son of Upendra Tanti Resident of Village - Dharharwa, P.S. Bithan, District - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-11-2020 Heard Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Alauli PS Case No. 204/2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 392 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The allegation, as per First Information Report, is that the informant was intercepted by three accused persons riding on two motorcycles and on the point of gun, he was deprived of his belongings i.e., a laptop of Samsung make and Rs. 1,16,890/-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30087 of 2020(2) dt.25-11-2020 2/2 a co-accused, namely, Golu @ Vivek Yadav. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier three cases were registered against the petitioner. However, after arrest of the petitioner in this case, he has been remanded in six other cases on the basis of confessional statement. Learned counsel also submits that no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has not been put on the TIP as yet.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the material on record and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner inasmuch as a large number of case are pending against him, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

6. However, petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial does not record any progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T