Pintu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37471 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2020 Thana- KHAIRA District- Jamui ====================================================== PINTU YADAV Son of Kashi Yadav Resident of Village - Lalpur, P.S.- Khaira, Dist.- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prabhat Ranjan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-02-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is in custody since 24.05.2020 in connection with Khaira P.S. Case No. 160/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, after withdrawing money from Gopalpur Branch of SBI when the informant reached near Sawalakh Baba Mandir, 3-5 persons, on the point of pistol, looted fifty thousand rupees and one android mobile phone of Samsung company. It is further alleged that all the three miscreants had covered their face with masks and were between 20-25 years of age.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37471 of 2020(2) dt.02-02-2021 2/2 petitioner is not named in the FIR, however, during the course of investigation, his name surfaced. It is further submitted that no incriminating article or looted cash was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is next submitted that, so called, stolen mobile phone has not been put on T.I. Parade till date. Petitioner has clean antecedent and is in custody since 24.05.2020.

However, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that as per the paragraph No. 16 of the case diary, stolen mobile has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Saif/- U T