Patna High CourtCR. MISC./55845/2021bail rejected

Mukesh Pathak @ Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2022-02-22Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55845 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-549 Year-2019 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Mukesh Pathak @ Mukesh Kumar Son Of Late Ramchandra Pathak Resident Of Village - Dharfari, P.S.- Deoriya, District - Muzaffarpur, Presently Residing At Krishna Toil Brahampura, P.S.- Brahampura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Meenapur P.S. Case No. 549 of 2019, instituted for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.01.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and has antecedent of two cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation is of bank loot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as despite he being arrested, he was never put on T.I.P. nor any incriminating

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55845 of 2021(2) dt.22-02-2022 2/2 article was recovered from his possession.

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that though the cash looted was only Rs. 34,325/- but then the said money was public money which was looted by the petitioner and other accused persons along with a laptop, tab, mobile etc. Learned A.P.P. further submits that the petitioner has been identified based on the C.C.T.V. footage as such his involvement in the crime, for the present, for the purposes of bail, stands established. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court, for the present, is not inclined to grant the bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is thus refused.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Gaurav Kumar/- U T