Amit Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16626 of 2016 (3) dt.23-05-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16626 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -272 Year- 2015 Thana -AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAURANGABAD ====================================================== Amit Yadav Son of Sheo Kumar Yadav Resident of village -Naya tola, Jurabganj, PS Korha, District Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner is in custody since 23.11.2015 in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S.Case No.272 of 2015 pending in the Court of CJM, Aurangabad registered for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the informant alongwith one Chhotu Kumar were coming with five lacks cash by withdrawing from HDFC Bank and when they came at Dani Bigha one Pulsar Motorcycle upon which two persons came there and one person sitting behind the driver of said motorcycle, snatched the bag containing the above amount.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16626 of 2016 (3) dt.23-05-2016 petitioner is in custody since 23.11.2015. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from the possession of the petitioner.

On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the informant has identified the petitioner in the test identification parade and the petitioner has got criminal antecedent also. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to release the above named petitioner on bail, the same is rejected.

Anyhow, if so advised, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completion of one year in custody. (Sudhir Singh, J) B.Kr./- U T