Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34110/2019rejected

Chandra Kishor Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2019-09-13Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34110 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2018 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== CHANDRA KISHOR MANDAL Son of Dinesh Kumar Mandal Resident of village- Hingna Aurahi, Police Station- Raniganj, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 44895 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2018 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== SURAJ KUMAR MANDAL @ SURAJ KUMAR Son of Jayakant Mandal Resident of Village - Hingna Aurahi, P.S.- Raniganj, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34110 of 2019) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Indra Kumar Singh (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 44895 of 2019) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 13-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioners of both the applications are accused in connection with Raniganj P.S. Case No. 469 of 2018 registered under Section 392 of the I.P.C. Therefore, both applications are being heard together and disposed of by this order.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34110 of 2019(4) dt.13-09-2019 2/2 Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. Further submission is that petitioners are in custody since 09.01.2019.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that the names of the petitioners have been transpired in the alleged occurrence in course of investigation. In the case diary, the witnesses have also supported the prosecution version. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected.

However, liberty is given to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Arvind Srivastava, J) shailendra/- U T