Prem Kumar Singh @ Prem Kumar Tiger @ Prem Kumar Singh Tiger v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53592 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-627 Year-2018 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Prem Kumar Singh @ Prem Kumar Tiger @ Prem Kumar Singh Tiger (male), aged about 38 years, son of Sri Yugal Kishore Singh, resident of villageBhadai, Ward No. 10, P.S.- Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 627 of 2018 registered for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The prosecution story as per the First Information Report is that informant was going on a motorcycle to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,64,600/- along with a cheque of Rs. 9,95,000/- on National Highway- 77 and his motorcycle was intercepted by two motorcycles on which four persons were sitting. The informant further stated that the accused persons snatched the money from the informant and made firing in the air through pistols in their hands and all the accused persons were of age group about 2530 years. Mr. Pushpenra Kumar Singh, learned counsel

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53592 of 2019(3) dt.25-11-2019 2/2 appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and his name has transpired on the basis of confessional statement of one Ravi Shankar Kumar @ Satyam.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail and submits that petitioner has six cases pending against him and is a history sheeter having criminal antecedent, and as such, he does not deserve the privilege of bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the criminal history of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, if trial is not concluded within a period of six months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail in accordance with law thereafter.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T