Manish Sahni @ Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40675 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-454 Year-2019 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Manish Sahni @ Manish Kumar Son of Suresh Sahni Resident of Village - Balaha, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Bela Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-04-2021 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Vaishali P.S. Case No. 454 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, while the informant was going to Bank on the motorcycle, on the way, three unknown miscreants riding motorcycle intercepted him and on the point of pistol, snatched motorcycle, mobile and cash of Rs. 3,50,000/- and fled away.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40675 of 2020(3) dt.08-04-2021 2/2 petitioner is not named in the FIR. No looted article has been recovered from his possession. Petitioner has been arrested on suspicion and self confessional statement of the petitioner has got no evidentiary value. Petitioner has not been put on TIP till date and is in custody since 25.07.2020.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that during course of investigation two witnesses namely Pramod Singh and Subodh Singh who claim to be eye witness of the occurrence had taken name of this petitioner and submitted that petitioner along with other accused persons committed the offence.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T