Dilip Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13367 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -215 Year- 2016 Thana -DIGHA District- PATNA ====================================================== Dilip Sah, Son of Late Bharat Sah, Resident of Machchua Toli, P.S. Danapur, District-Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Sahin Begam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Digha P.S. Case No. 215 of 2016, registered under Sections 393 and 397 of Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of SDJM, Patna. The accusation is that on 30.08.2016 at about 10.00 A.M. informant moved for marketing from his house. In the way, one person came and caught his bicycle and on the point of pistol and tried to snatch his bag. When informant made protest then he made firing on him, but the same was missed and thereafter he caused assault to the informant by the butt of the pistol. On raising hulla, nearby people reached there and he was apprehended, who disclosed his name as Dilip Sah (Petitioner). On search, one country made pistol and Rs. 25000/- was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13367 of 2017 (2) dt.23-03-2017 2/2 submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and after apprehending in the present case, the petitioner has been remanded in Digha P.S. Case No. 214 of 2016 for the offence under Section 25(1-b)a, 26 of Arms Act for recovery of pistol and also in Digha P.S. Case No. 215 of 2016 under Section 393/397 of I.P.C. making attempt to consume phenyl by this petitioner. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, at present the prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T