Dankal Kumar @ Chhotu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57774 of 2015 (2) dt.29-01-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.57774 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -349 Year- 2015 Thana -SAHARSA District- SAHARSA ======================================================

1. Dankal Kumar @ Chhotu Kumar son of Maheshwar Prasad Yadav Resident of Village - Dharahara Dhata, P.S. - Raghopur, District - Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subesh Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Rai 1 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 29-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 349 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 413, 414/234 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the petitioner was caught with stolen motorcycle and he stated that he has purchased the said motorcycle from Shekhar Kumar Sah and Manish Kumar. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 06.05.2015, he is a student of I. A. and is preparing competitive examination of Railway and Banking, co-accused Shekhar Kumar Sah has been allowed bail by the court below itself and Manish Kumar has been allowed bail vide order

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57774 of 2015 (2) dt.29-01-2016 dated 18.09.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43206 of 2015 by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner was caught with stolen motorcycle and he has pasted white radium paper on number plate.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, at present, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after remaining further four months in custody. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T