Pawan Sah @ Pavan Kumar Sah @ Pawan Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34702 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2014 Thana- LAUKAHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Pawan Sah @ Pavan Kumar Sah @ Pawan Kumar Sah S/o- Sant Lal Sah Village- Chhajana Ps- Laukahi Dist- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jaishankar Kumar Yadav For the State :
Mr. Nagendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case No. 24 of 2014 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 344, 386, 387 and 34 of the IPC corresponding to G.R. No. 275 of 2014.
3. As per allegation, ASI, Ashok Kumar Singh told the informant that some criminals have looted liquor from a liquor shop. When he went to verify the same, on 25.02.2014 at 9:15 PM, liquor shop vendor stated that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons came there and demanded two bottles of signature liquor and Rs. 11,000/- cash as extraction on gun point. Thereafter, liquor vendor handed over the liquor and cash
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34702 of 2025(7) dt.28-11-2025 2/2 to the accused persons
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that Ashok Kumar Singh, who himself is a police officer did not lodge the case whereas the informant who is SHO has lodged the case. Learned counsel has further submitted that information was given on 26.02.2014 but the FIR was lodged on 27.02.2014.
5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is involved in as many as 24 cases.
6. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) priyanka/- U T