Patna High CourtCR. MISC./62048/2018dismissed

Raj Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2018-10-29Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.62048 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-621 Year-2017 Thana- KOTWALI District- Patna ====================================================== Raj Singh Son of Akshya Lal Singh, Resident of Village- Sheopur, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur, At Present Nohalla-A.G. Colony, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Patna High Court through Registrar General, Patna. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Davendra Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 29-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioner prays for bail in connection with Kotwali P.S.Case No. 621 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419, 402, 465, 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 65, 66, 66(A), 66(C) (D) of the I.T. Act, 2000.

Allegation against the accused persons, including the petitioner is that they have created a mirror web-site of Patna High Court and it is also alleged that the forged web-site has been registered in the name of one Ravinesh Sinha. Petitioner is not named in the FIR and later on his name transpired during course of investigation and petitioner has confessed his guilt and he is accused in five other cases.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.62048 of 2018(3) dt.29-10-2018 2/2 Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that except confessional statement there is nothing against him and co-accused has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.10.2018 passed in Cr.Misc.No. 50397 of 2018.

Heard learned APP and learned counsel appearing for the Patna High Court. They have opposed the prayer for bail stating that petitioner has criminal antecedents. Having heard both sides and in the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

However, once charge has been framed in this case petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

With the above observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T