Dharmendra Kumar @ Doma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46553 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2020 Thana- MOKAMAH District- Patna ====================================================== DHARMENDRA KUMAR @ DOMA SON OF RAJA RAM YADAV Resident of Village - Jaynandanpur, P.S.- Fatuha, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 21-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, about four accused persons on the point of pistol assaulted the informant and took away Rs. 2 lacs besides other articles as stated in the FIR. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was registered against unknown. The name of the petitioner transpired in course of investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Pawan Kumar made before police. Inspite of being in custody since 19.12.2020, the petitioner has not been put on TI parade and chargesheet has been submitted. No incriminating article has been recovered

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46553 of 2021(4) dt.21-03-2022 2/2 from the petitioner's possession and co-accused Kundan Kumar has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 3.3.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 46194 of 2021.

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, the material that has transpired in course of investigation together with the recovery of the stolen articles on the confessional statement of co-accused recorded during course of investigation as also the antecedent of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Spd/- U T