Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18010/2016dismissed

Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2016-05-25Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18010 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -126 Year- 2015 Thana -MAKER District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Sandeep Kumar son of Anil Ojha @ Bhol Kuar, resident of VillageParsa Mathura, P.S.- Parsa, District- Saran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Meena Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Maker P.S.Case No. 126 of 2015 registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Smt. Divya Shekhar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra. As per FIR, the informant, who is the Manager of a petrol pump on 23.11.2015 at 12.30 P.M. was going to SBI on a motorcycle for depositing case of Rs. 1,80,000/- and an A/C payee cheque amounting to Rs. 85,000/- there. But in the way, he was chased and intercepted by two motorcycle borne four unknown criminals. The criminals on gun point robbed of the motorcycle of the informant in which there was cash of Rs. 1,80,000/- and a cheque of Rs. 85,000/- in the dickey of the motorcycle.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18010 of 2016 (3) dt.25-05-2016 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 15.01.2016.Charge sheet has been submitted in this case. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from the possession of the petitioner. No T.I. parade has been carried out. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner has come in course of investigation and he is involved in as many as four cases, of similar nature. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and same is rejected. Any how the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after completion of nine months in custody. (Sudhir Singh, J) singh/- U T