Ranjeet Dhadhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4607 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2020 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== RANJEET DHADHI Son of Ramashish Dhadhi Resident of Village-Manpur, P.S.-Sare, District-Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 26-05-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual Court proceedings. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 & 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that while the informant was going to Nawada by Truck, he was intercepted by a Hywa vehicle near Wazirganj and four persons being armed with revolver are said to have took away key of the truck and Rs.2200/- and laid them by tying their hands and legs. After one and half hour when the informant opened his eyes he found that the police and public caught three accused persons to whom he identified.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4607 of 2021(3) dt.26-05-2021 2/2 that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the police. No incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 22.05.2020.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that from perusal of paragraph-58 of the case diary, it appears that petitioner has been identified in T.I. parade, hence he does not deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the case diary, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) GAURAV S./- U T