Amarjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62055 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2021 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== AMARJEET KUMAR Son of Shakti Kumar Resident of Village - Rasula P.S. Kako (Bhelawar O.P.), District - Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Paras Nath, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The case arises out of Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 129 of 2021 registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR is against unknown and the name of the petitioner has cropped up in course of investigation. Since the FIR was lodged against unknown, the case diary was called for vide an order dated 22.04.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the informant and the petitioner herein were working under the same roof and as such it is improbable that on the first occasion, the FIR was lodged against unknown. It shows the innocence and his name has been dragged later on in course of investigation.

Learned APP has gone through the different paragraphs of the case diary and he attributes this Court's

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62055 of 2021(3) dt.11-05-2022 2/2 attention to paragraph -7 of the case diary where the photograph of the petitioner was identified by the vehicle owner as one of the accused person who had committed the crime. He further submits that paragraph-12 is the confessional statement of the petitioner and it was on his statement that the alleged vehicle was recovered from the road side, which has been incorporated in paragraph-62 of the case diary. He further submits that the matter has already been committed to the Court and as such he should not be granted the privilege of bail.

Taking into account the aforesaid facts that not only the vehicle owner has identified the petitioner, on his confessional statement the vehicle was recovered from the road side, this Court is not inclined to grant him the privilege of bail. The bail application is hereby rejected.

Since, the matter has already been committed to the Court of Session, the same may be expedited and taken to its logical conclusion at an earliest.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/- U T