Bheem Sahani @ Bhim Sahani v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23750 of 2018 Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -96 Year- 2017 Thana -PAROO District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== BHEEM SAHANI @ BHIM SAHANI, Son of Ramjanam Sahni, Resident of Village- Basanta Jhanabad, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niranjan Parihar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anish Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Paroo P.S.Case No.96 of 2017 pending in the Court of ACJM-III, West Muzaffarpur registered for an offence under Section 392 of the IPC.
As per written report three unknown miscreants on a motorcycle intercepted the informant and snatched bag containing money which he had collected in course of business. The accused persons further snatched five cellular phones of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor any incriminating material has been recovered from his possession. The petitioner has been remanded in this case from Vaishali Belsar P.S.Case
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23750 of 2018 (3) dt.17-05-2018 2/2 No.112 of 2017 only on suspicion. The petitioner was neither identified at the spot nor any independent witness has claimed to identify the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail custody since 28.06.2017 and so he deserves bail.
The learned APP opposed the submissions.
On perusal of FIR and the case diary, it appears that this petitioner was arrested and he confessed his complicity in the above crime. It appears that a cash amount of Rs.15,000/-, one loaded pistol and five cartridges and two mobile sets were recovered from the possession of the petitioner, besides that the petitioner is involved in nine more cases of similar nature. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The prayer is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar, J) B.Kr./- U T