Bidyanand Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66776 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2020 Thana- BARAUNI District- Begusarai ====================================================== Bidyanand Sahni Son of Ramashish Sahni Resident of Village - Kumbhi, P.s.- Chariya Bariyarpur, Distt.- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Tarkeshwar Pd. Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, as pointed out by the office be removed within four weeks from today.

In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barauni P.S. Case No. 212 of 2020 registered for the alleged offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons looted motorcycle, mobile phone and cash from the informant on gun point.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. has been registered against unknown and on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner he has been arrested in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66776 of 2021(3) dt.29-06-2022 2/2 this case. However, the learned counsel submits that the looted motorcycle was recovered from the possession of the petitioner as alleged and Khudawanpur P.S. Case No. 258 of 2020 registered under Sections 414, 465 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code. But the petitioner has been granted bail by the learned court below. The petitioner is in custody since 07.01.2021. The A.P.P. for the State opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. further submits that the recovery of the motorcycle was made from the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made hereinabove and considering the fact that recovery of looted motorcycle was made from the petitioner who is having criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded within the said period.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) ved/niku U T