Rohit Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38214 of 2014 (4) dt.16-02-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38214 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -207 Year- 2014 Thana -MADHUBANI TOWN DistrictMADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Rohit Yadav Son of Late Kallu Yadav resident of village- Jorabganj, P.S.- Kodha (Korha), District- Katihar.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pushpa Sinha (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 207 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392/411 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly when the informant with Panchayat Secretary after withdrawing the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/- and keeping the same in bag were returning to their house, on TVS Apache two persons came and snatched the bag containing the money from the hands of Panchayat Secretary and in that course the informant and Panchayat Secretary fell down and raised alarm and at that time, the Police also came and Police and nearby persons apprehended the petitioner with bag and the motorcycle and another person was succeeded in fleeing away.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38214 of 2014 (4) dt.16-02-2015 The petitioner disclosed the name of his associates as Raju Yadav. On search from his possession five keys of motorcycle, one Tekua, one screw driver, one tester and in puriyas the powder of itching were recovered.

Submission is that the seizure list has been prepared after two months and no amount was produced in the court and it is said that the amount recovered was released in favour of the informant on Jimmenama. The petitioner is suffering in custody since 15.5.2014. In this case chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tempering with the prosecution evidence.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that from possession of the petitioner looted amount was recovered and some incriminating articles have also been recovered.

Considering the submissions urged at bar, going through the records and noticing that the petitioner was caught by the Police officials with looted money, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T