Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45551/2015rejected

Triloki Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2016-01-06Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45551 of 2015 (3) dt.06-01-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45551 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -122 Year- 2015 Thana -PATNA CITY CHOWK District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Triloki Prasad Son of Late Bishwanath Prasad resident of Bare Ki Gali, P.S. Chowk, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.D. Singh Yadav (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 06-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chowk P.S. Case No. 122 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly two un-known miscreants snatched bag from the informant, containing cash of Rs. 3,34,000/- and during investigation the name of the petitioner transpires that he was watching the conduct of the informant from earlier and further the petitioner confessed his guilt and on the basis of his confessional statement, part of the robbed amount amounting to Rs. 11,500/- was recovered.

Submission is of false implication and that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45551 of 2015 (3) dt.06-01-2016 petitioner has been made victim of the circumstance, he is not named in the F.I.R., no T.I.P. has been conducted and further the recovered amount has also not been put on T.I.P., the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he is suffering in custody since 20.06.2015.

The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner has acted as informer and at his instigation, the crime was committed and he got share of Rs. 12,000/- out of which Rs. 11,500/- was recovered. In the facts and circumstances stated above, at present this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within six months, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U