Pappu Kewat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33667 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-293 Year-2021 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.

PAPPU KEWAT.

2.

Rohit Kewat.

Both are Son of Sudhir Kewat, Resident of Village - Bakara, P.s.- Bind, Distt.- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 12-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.

Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The case is registered under Sections 395, 412 of the IPC in connection with Harnaut P.S. Case no.293/2021. The allegation against these two petitioners Pappu Kewat and Rohit Kewat, who have eight and three criminal antecedents respectively under their belt is that while the informant and his family members were sleeping, they heard commotion and found accused persons in their house. The further allegation is that the informant was tied and his gold chain was snatched. The same offence was repeated with his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33667 of 2022(2) dt.12-09-2022 2/2 better half and after committing dacoity they left the place. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they have been implicated only because they have criminal antecedent and have no role to play in the matter. Learned APP however submits that as per para-9 of the bail application TI Parade was done and the petitioners were identified by the informant.

Taking into account the aforesaid facts as also that both of them have been identified in the TI Parade and have criminal antecedent of same nature, this Court is not inclined to grant them privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected. The Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an earliest.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T