Pankaj Kumar @ Pangi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.19413 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -251 Year- 2017 Thana -SILAW District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar @ Pangi, S/o Late Jay Prakash Singh, R/o VillageSurumpur, P.S.- Silao , District- Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2018 in connection with Silao P.S. Case No.251 of 2017 registered for the offence under Sections 461, 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif.
Diary in the present case had been called for, which has since been received.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mobile, which was recovered from his possession, is one which he had himself purchased from another person and was not knowing that the said mobile is a stolen mobile.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19413 of 2018 (3) dt.03-05-2018 2/2 Learned counsel for the State after perusal of the case diary submits that the number of the mobile, which was so recovered from the possession of the petitioner, matched with the number as detailed in the F.I.R. It has also come in the case diary that the petitioner has sold said mobile to another person from whom recovery of that mobile was made. Other mobiles have also been recovered from his possession. It, thus, appears that the petitioner is, in fact, involved in the occurrence.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstance and the materials which have surfaced in the case diary, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.
The petitioner may, however, renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge.
(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T