Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19660/2017rejected

Guddu Kumar Mahto @ Guddu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-20Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19660 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -790 Year- 2016 Thana -AHIAPUR District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Guddu Kumar Mahto @ Guddu Kumar Son of Badri Narayan Mahto, Resident of Village- Garha, P.S.- Laduniya, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Ms. Jyotsna Rani Mishra, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 790 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.

The driver of the truck bearing registration no. PB13AR-7991 alleged that while he was going to Siliguri, his truck was intercepted by miscreants and they looted away his truck after making him unconscious.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. At best the petitioner can be responsible for concealing the looted goods and for that the petitioner is in jail since 26.12.2016. Charge sheet has already been submitted but, it

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19660 of 2017 (4) dt.20-06-2017 2/2 appears from perusal of the records that the looted articles were kept by the petitioner on such the petitioner was apprehended. The petitioner confessed his guilt and in pursuance of the confession the looted articles were recovered from the house of Ramdhani Mahto. The petitioner also confessed that he committed many offences and amassed immovable property.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the case relates to highway robbery and the looted articles were recovered in pursuance of the disclosure made by the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T