Pappu Yadav @ Prince Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36169 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2019 Thana- MUFFASIL District- Aurangabad ====================================================== PAPPU YADAV @ PRINCE YADAV Son of Late Ramchandra Singh resident of village- Nad Band, P.S- Karakat, District-Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhaskar Shankar,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 05-04-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 06.06.2020 in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 279 of 2019 for the alleged offences under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with snatching of a motorcycle and a Lenovo mobile phone from the informant. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, which has been instituted against three unknown persons and he has been implicated merely on the basis of his confessional statement. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from the conscious possession of the petitioner nor he has been put on TIP for his identification.

4. Learned APP appears and has been heard. He has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36169 of 2020(5) dt.05-04-2021 2/2 obtained a copy of the case diary in order to assist this Court, which on request is placed on record.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations, gravity of offence alleged as well as the criminal antecedents of the petitioner who is accused in as many as 9 prior cases, most of which are of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed.

6. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T