Nilesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35117 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -404 Year- 2015 Thana -MUFFASIL DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Nilesh Kumar Yadav S/o Jay Nath Yadav, Resident of Village- Mathia, P.S.- Lauriya, District- West Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with Bettiah Mufassil (Manuapool) P.S. Case No.404 of 2015 giving rise to Sessions Trial No.97 of 2016 registered under Sections 328, 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.1.2016 passed in Cr.Misc. No.49518 of 2015 with observation that he may renew his prayer for bail after six months.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the case is committed to the court of session,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35117 of 2016 (2) dt.20-08-2016 2/2 charges have not been framed as yet. He submits that the petitioner was never put on T.I.Parade and his implication in the present case is merely on suspicion.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner along with four others was apprehended by the police and from their possession looted articles were recovered. The informant had identified the accused persons even before institution of the FIR and, therefore, there was no question to put him on T.I.Parade. In view of nature of allegation and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charges and deposition of the informant during trial.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md.S./- U T