Birendra Singh Yadav @ Birendra Samrat @ Birendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49104 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -34 Year- 2016 Thana -DHANGAI District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Birendra Singh Yadav @ Birendra Samrat @ Birendra Yadav, null resident of Village- Babhaniyama, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur at Ara (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Suresh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 09-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 34 of 2016 registered under Sections- 395, 364 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that while the informant was driving his truck loaded with paddy to Patna, a white Balero overtaken his vehicle and stopped. 7-8 persons having arms in their hand came out of Bolero and made the informant and his khalasi sit on Bolero on the point of Katta. They took the truck to a Godown, unloaded the paddy. While leaving the informant with his truck, the informant seeing the police personnel made alarm. On which some accused persons were arrested and some fled

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49104 of 2016 (4) dt.09-02-2017 2/2 away. Arrested persons named this petitioner as the head of the gang who supplied money and arms.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recovery has been made from Sanjay Rice Mill with that petitioner has no concern. Petitioner has been implicated on confessional statement of co-accused.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner was apprehended on the spot with arms.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, I do not feel inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Manish/- U T