Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36234/2020dismissed

Manoj Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

2021-03-05Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36234 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-325 Year-2019 Thana- BOCHAHAN District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MANOJ SAHANI son of Mahadev Sahani Resident of Village- Bhusara, P.S.- Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Bochahan P.S. Case No. 325 of 2019, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code. A Branch Manager of the Union Bank of India, Bajitpur, Majhaulia, Muzaffarpur is the informant, who has alleged that he was intercepted by the miscreants, who came in three motorcycles and, thereafter, they snatched a bag, which he was carrying, containing key of bank, LIC papers, ATM Card and cash etc.

It transpires that the petitioner's name surfaced during the course of investigation and he confessed his involvement in the commission of the offence. The petitioner has criminal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36234 of 2020(3) dt.05-03-2021 2/2 antecedent, inasmuch as he is involved in serious offences, details of which are being given in paragraph 3 of the application which are as under:- "(i) Town P.S. Case No. 17/18 U/Ss 302/34/120B I.P.C. and 27,25 (1-b)A/26/35 of the Arms Act.

(ii) Bochahan P.S. Case No. 307 of 2018 U/S 395 I.P.C and (iii) Bochahan P.S. Case No. 342/19 U/Ss 399, 403 120B of the I.P.C and 25(1-b)a/26/35 Arms Act."

Considering the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and the materials available in the case diary coupled with the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of regular bail to the petitioner.

This application is rejected.

The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail within six months from today, if, in the meanwhile, there is no substantial progress in the trial. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) arun/- U