Bambam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33221 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2020 Thana- KHARHAGPUR District- Munger ====================================================== Bambam Kumar, Male, aged about 35 years, Son of Shailendra Bind @ Shairu Bind @ Sheru, Resident of Village Barui, P.S. Khagarpur, District Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2021 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Bambam Kumar and the learned Additional P.P. Petitioner seeks bail in Habeli Kharagpur P.S. Case No.24 of 2020, registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that on 23.01.2020, he along with his friends, Prem Kumar and Krishna Paswan was going to the house of his relatives but some miscreants put bamboo barricades and stopped the vehicle of the informant. The accused persons robbed mobile and motorcycle of the informant and his two friends.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner surfaced in the case in the confessional

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33221 of 2020(3) dt.15-01-2021 2/2 statement of co-accused, Mithun Kumar and Arjun Kumar @ Doctor and they have been granted bail by this Court. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, but it appears from the records that the looted mobile was recovered from the house of Manohar Bind and during the course of investigation, the looted mobile was recovered from possession of the petitioner. Paragraphs 58 and onwards of the case diary shows that the call details of the looted mobile was taken and it was found that the petitioner used the said mobile for two days even after the occurrence.

Taking into consideration the facts that it is a case of road robbery and the looted mobile was recovered from possession of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T