Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35163/2020rejected

Dilip Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2021-03-19Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35163 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-620 Year-2019 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== DILIP SINGH son of Late Arjun Singh Resident of Village- Lalpokhar Dighi, Dighikala West, P.S. Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 620 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. From the report submitted by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-X, Vaishali at Hajipur, it transpires that the matter before the Court below was fixed for framing of charge on 18.03.2021. It is the prosecution's case that unknown miscreants had looted the informant's motorcycle on gun point, which was subsequently recovered from petitioner's ancestral house.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the place from where the recovery of looted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35163 of 2020(5) dt.19-03-2021 2/2 motorcycle was made by the police, was never in possession of the petitioner. It was in possession of his brother (Vikram Kumar).

Be that as it may, considering the petitioner's criminal antecedent and his alleged involvement in other criminal cases of serious nature, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application and the fact that during the course of investigation, one of the co-accused had made confessional statement regarding petitioner's involvement in commission of the offence leading to recovery of the said motorcycle, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail for the present. This application is accordingly rejected.

If there is no substantial progress at the trial, in the meanwhile, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) AKASH/- U T