Ram Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47675 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -179 Year- 2016 Thana -MOTIPUR District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Ram Kumar, S/o Shri Nagendra Mahto, R/o Village-Chakmaruf, P.S.- Belsar, District-Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Ashlam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 08-11-2016 Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh for the petitioner and Md. Ashlam Ansari, APP for the State.

The petitioner is facing prosecution in Motipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2016 registered under Sections 328/379 of the Indian Penal Code and has approached this Court for grant of regular bail.

On the date of occurrence, the informant along with his vehicle (Scorpio) was hired by the petitioner. On way, the petitioner offered cold drink to the informant which he later consumed and became senseless. He came in sense in the hospital whereafter the First Information Report was lodged. The police upon search seized the said vehicle with the petitioner riding thereon.

Contention of the petitioner is that on previous occasions,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47675 of 2016 (2) dt.08-11-2016 2/2 he had also hired the vehicle, but without any such allegation. In fact, he was taking care of the vehicle when the police searched and arrested him.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer contending that not only the allegation is of administering stupefying substance to the informant, but the vehicle was also subsequently found occupied by the petitioner. He also points out that the petitioner is involved in two more criminal cases. Considering the allegation and other materials reflected from the records including the impugned order, I am not inclined to grant him the privilege of bail. The prayer is rejected. It will, however, open to the petitioner to seek bail again after six months in the court below itself.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) rohit/- U T