Manohar Mehta @ Brajesh Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4807 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2021 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== MANOHAR MEHTA @ BRAJESH MEHTA S/o Surendra Mehta R/o village- Ram Nagar, Bharna, Ward No. 09, P.S.- Nauhatta, District- Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Shaheen Begum ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-07-2022 Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Raniganj P.S. Case No. 226/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 411 of the Indian Penal Code. As per prosecution case, on 31.08.2021 the informant was coming from Tempoo and suddenly one person came on motorcycle and snatched his mobile phone and fled away. After sometime accused-petitioner caught and on search looted mobile phone was recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 01.09.2021

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4807 of 2022(3) dt.27-07-2022 2/2 and bears criminal antecedent of three cases in which two cases are of similar nature and in all cases he is on bail. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was apprehended red handed with looted mobile phone. In paras 15 and 16 of the case diary, the witnesses have supported the prosecution story.

Considering this aspect of the matter that the petitioner was apprehended red handed with alleged looted mobile phone, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. However, if the trial is not concluded within nine months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, the petitioner may renew prayer of bail.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkumar/- U T