Sanni Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55592 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -11 Year- 2016 Thana -IMADPUR District- BHOJPUR ======================================================

1. Sanni Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar, Son of Sri Ravi Shankar Singh, Resident of Village/Mohalla- Barka Gain, P.S.- Tarari, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Anil Kumar Singh 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-03-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Imadpur P.S. case No. 11 of 2016 under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that he withdrew Rs. 96,000/- from the Central Cooperative Bank, Tarari, Bhojpur and was going towards Bihta, three boys came near village Dharmpura and snatched Rs. 1,01,000/- from his possession.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner figured in the case in the subsequent statement of the informant recorded in paragraph 61 of the case diary but even then the petitioner has not been put in T. I. parade. The informant is said to have shown the CCTV footage of Punjab National Bank installed in the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55592 of 2016 (4) dt.17-03-2017 2/2 premises of which robbery was committed on 02.05.2016 and on the basis of aforesaid footage the petitioner is also made accused in the present case as the informant is said to have identified the petitioner and one Mannu Kumar, who are alleged to have snatched the money. It is submitted that petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in Imadpur P.S. case No. 15 of 2016 registered under Section 392 of the IPC on the ground that petitioner was not put in T. I. parade but from perusal of the aforesaid order and the case diary, it appears that the occurrence took place on 12.04.2016. The informant lodged the case against unknown. On 02.05.2016 another robbery was committed and photographs of the criminals were taken out from the CCTV and shown to the informant of the present case. The informant identified the petitioner and one Mannu Kumar. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after remaining one year in custody.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T