Sikandar Kumar @ Sikandar Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64838 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2021 Thana- CHHABILAPUR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Sikandar Kumar @ Sikandar Kumar Yadav S/O Late Awadhesh Yadav Resident Of Village- Seikhpura, P.S- Nimchak Bathani, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Manisha Prakash, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dinesh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Chhabilapur P.S. Case No. 85 of 2021 dated 16.08.2021, registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution, the informant alleged that a cash of Rs. 81,000/- and a mobile phone were looted by three unknown miscreants from the possession of the informant by brandishing weapon.

The main submissions advanced by petitioner's counsel are that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, he was remanded in the present case from Chhabilapur P.S. Case No. 43 of 2020 and against him there is no any legal evidence and he has been languishing in jail since 28.02.2022, though against him there are criminal antecedents of several cases but he is on bail in all the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64838 of 2022(3) dt.06-04-2023 2/2 said cases.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

Heard both the sides, perused the FIR and the case diary of this case. The instant matter relates to loot committed by the accused persons by causing firearm injury to the victim and his mobile phone and Rs 81,000/- were snatched by the accused persons, though the FIR was registered against the unknown persons but during investigation the petitioner was remanded in this case from Chhabilapur P.S. Case No. 43 of 2020 and thereafter in following with his disclosure the looted mobile phone concerned to the present case was recovered, of which details are mentioned at paragraph 37 of the case diary and the petitioner has criminal antecedent of several cases, in my opinion it is not a fit case for bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner's prayer for bail stands rejected.

The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if any significant progress is not made in his case by the trial Court.

(Shailendra Singh, J.) maynaz/- U T