Dhatura Paswan @ Rahul v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.14906 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -897 Year- 2016 Thana -SASARAM TOWN District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Dhatura Paswan @ Rahul, Son of Sheo Chand Paswan, resident of Mohalla - Alamganj, Police Station Sasaram ( Town ), District - Rohtas at Sasaram .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Rajballabh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 11-05-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioner seeks bail in Sasaram Town (Darigaon) P.S. case No. 897 of 2016 under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that while he along with his wife had gone to Kaimur Hill, after returning from Tara Chandi Mandir, two boys came and stopped them. In the meantime, two more boys came and all the accused persons snatched Rs. 2300/- from his possession.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Dr. Rajendra Prasad is informant of Sasaram Town (Darigaon) P.S. case No. 1133 of 2016 and Dr. Rajendra Prasad named the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14906 of 2017 (3) dt.11-05-2017 2/2 petitioner and one Krishna Kumar Gupta. Dr. Biswas is informant of the present case and the informant was knowing the petitioner from before. The petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in Sasaram Town (Darigaon) P.S. case No. 1133 of 2016 vide order dated 13.01.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1178 of 2017. The petitioner is in jail since 27.10.2016 but it appears from perusal of the case diary that the informant did not lodge the case against unknown and there is nothing on record to show that informant was knowing the petitioner from before. The informant described special mark of the accused persons in the FIR itself on the basis of which the petitioner was apprehended and he was put on T. I. parade. From perusal of paragraph 47 of the case diary it appears that informant identified the petitioner as one of the persons who robbed him.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after remaining one year in custody if the trial is not concluded. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T