Vikky @ Jamal Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8817 of 2016 (3) dt.11-04-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8817 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -505 Year- 2015 Thana -MARHAURA District- SARAN ======================================================
1. Vikky @ Jamal Ahmad, Son of Md. Ibrar Ali, Resident of VillageKarimchak, Police Station- Chapra Town, District- Saran. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jay Prakash Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 11-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Marhaura P.S. Case No. 505 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegedly, three motorcycle borne unknown miscreants at the point of knife snatched cash of Rs. 100/- from the pocket of Jaglal Rai and mobile and fled away with the motorcycle of the informant. During investigation confessional statement of coaccused Amit Raj @ Golu Kumar was recorded and he stated the name of the petitioner that the alleged motorcycle was sold to the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner was apprehended and he accepted that he has purchased the said motorcycle for Rs. 5,500/- and accordingly, the said motorcycle was recovered from the shop
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8817 of 2016 (3) dt.11-04-2016 of the petitioner.
Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner was not knowing that the said motorcycle was looted property and as bonafide purchaser the petitioner purchased the same, the petitioner is suffering in custody since 09.01.2016 and as such he deserves sympathetic consideration to which learned APP opposes by submitting that the investigation is still going on. In the facts and circumstances stated above, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer of bail after remaining six months in custody.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T