Deepak Bhandari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1837 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2020 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.

DEEPAK BHANDARI Son of Ram Biraji Bhandari @ Ramvirajee Bhandari Resident of Village- Brahampur, P.S.- Kamtaul, Distt- Darbhanga. 2.

BINOD PASWAN Son of Mangal Paswan Resident of Village- Brahampur, P.S.- Kamtaul, Distt- Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Iqbal Asif Niazi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioners seek bail in Kamtaul P.S. Case No. 191 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, while the informant was returning with his pick up van from Muzaffarpur, eight unknown miscreants riding on motorcycle overtook his pick up van and looted cash of Rs. 7,74,000/- from his possession and also assaulted the informant and snatched vehicle key and mobile.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1837 of 2021(2) dt.08-03-2021 2/2 petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered from their conscious possession. There is no allegation of any overt act against these petitioners. The police has arrested the petitioners only on suspicion. Petitioners are in custody since 09.08.2020.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that during course of investigation cash of Rs. 1,30,000/- was recovered from possession of petitioner no. 1. On the disclosure made by petitioner no. 1 the police raided the house of petitioner no. 2 and also recovered a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- and on the disclosure of petitioner no. 1 looted money were recovered from possession of other miscreants. Petitioners have got criminal antecedent. Considering the facts aforesaid and criminal antecedent of the petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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