Mantu Singh @ Alok Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47382 of 2014 (2) dt.04-03-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47382 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -266 Year- 2014 Thana -PIRO District- BHOJPUR ======================================================

1. Mantu Singh @ Alok Kumar Son of Kuwar Singh, Resident of Village - Panwari, P.S. - Sikrahata, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.1437 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -266 Year- 2014 Thana -PIRO District- BHOJPUR ======================================================

1. Rahul Yadav son of Lok Prakash Yadav resident of Village - Sikraul, P.S. Sikrahata, District - Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Cr.Misc. No.47382 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh(App) (In Cr.Misc. No.1437 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are accused in a case under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that while the informant was returning on his motor cycle after delivering mobile sets to the shopkeepers, he was stopped by the three miscreants and looted away his motor cycle, Mobile and money from him. The motor cycle is said to be recovered from the possession of petitioner Rahul Yadav. The name of petitioner Mantu Singh @ Alok Kumar figured in the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47382 of 2014 (2) dt.04-03-2015 confessional statement of accused Rahul Yadav. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Mantu Singh states that his name figured in the confessional statement of accused Rahul Yadav and there is no recovery from his possession. Nonetheless, the petitioner has fairly stated that he is an accused in four other cases including the case registered under the Arms Act. He submits that no Test Identification Parade has been held.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Rahul Yadav submits that though the police have shown recovery of motor cycle and Mobile from his possession, no T.I. Parade has been held. He submits that since the police has arrested the petitioner in one case, he has been named in a routine manner in subsequent cases as well. In view of the fact that the petitioners are accused in other cases and looted motor cycle and Mobile has been recovered from the possession of accused Rahul Yadav, I am not inclined to grant bail to them. Their prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. However, the petitioner Mantu Singh @ Alok Kumar may renew his prayer for bail after remaining 10 months in custody and petitioner Rahul Yadav may renew his prayer for bail after remaining one year in custody.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) KHAN/- U T