Santosh Mahto @ Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56169 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2023 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Santosh Mahto @ Santosh Kumar son of Ratan Mahto R/o Village-Siswa Ajagari P.S- Banjariya District-East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mrs. Ranjana Srivastava, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025 Heard Mrs. Ranjana Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 27 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged on 07.01.2023 by the informant Vicky Kumar Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while moving near Arya Samaj Chowk, the accused intercepted and snatched his bag containing huge amount beside mobile. This led to the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only because of criminal antecedent he has been implicated and has no role to play in the matter.
5. Learned APP has pointed out that learned Sessions
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56169 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 2/2 Judge recorded that before the said court also the petitioner narrated that he has two criminal antecedent whereas the learned Sessions Judge recorded that actually he has three criminal antecedent.
6. Once again in the present bail application, it has been recorded that he has two criminal antecedent.
7. Taking into account the allegation that has come coupled with the fact that despite the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner failed to narrate that he has actually three criminal antecedents under his belt, in that background, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T