Vishwajeet Choudhary @ Vishu Choudhary @ Vishnu v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17691 of 2016 (4) dt.27-06-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17691 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -99 Year- 2013 Thana -KARAHGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Vishwajeet Choudhary @ Vishu Choudhary @ Vishnu S/o Sri Gupteshwar Choudhary Resident of Village- Barun P.S.- Barun, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kr.Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 27-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Karhgar P.S. Case No. 99 of 2013 registered for the offence punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, five unknown miscreants had snatched Rs. 80,000/- after opening shot on Ajit Kumar Singh and further took away his Samsung Mobile having SIM of Airtel and during investigation the name of the petitioner transpired and he was put on test identification parade which is evident from the impugned order and he has been identified by the witnesses.

Submission is of false implication and that the alleged identification parade is not in accordance with law. The petitioner is in custody since 06.09.2014, what was the role played by the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17691 of 2016 (4) dt.27-06-2016 petitioner has not come to notice, nothing has been recovered from possession of the petitioner and as such he deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents also. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the materials collected during investigation against the petitioner, at present, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Karhgar P.S. Case No. 99 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. Let the trial be expedited and concluded after taking the same on priority basis.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) khushbu/veena U T