Pandab Paswan @ Pandat Paswan @ Pandap Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67238 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2023 Thana- CHACKMEHSI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Pandab Paswan @ Pandat Paswan @ Pandap Paswan Son Of Maksudan Paswan R/O Sakhaura Ward No. 12, P.S. - Piyar (Hattha Op), Distt. - Muzaffarpur, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Piyush Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-12-2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chakmehsi P.S. Case No. 109 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 394, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, a person carrying money was stopped, money was looted by the unknown criminals and he was shot by the criminals and it has come during investigation that the petitioner has participated in the crime.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except for the confessional statement of the co-accused there is no material against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has not been put on T.I. Parade and the recovery of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67238 of 2023(3) dt.13-12-2023 2/2 Rs. 3000 cannot be linked with the alleged loot.

6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of the bail of the petitioner by contending that petitioner is one of the gang members involved in such kind of loot and whenever they are short of money they commit similar crime.

7. In view of the fact that one person has been killed by the criminals while committing loot, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

9. The District Judge, Samastipur and the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur are directed to see to it that the trial of the accused persons is not delayed.

10. It there is no sufficient progress in the trial then the petitioner many renew his prayer for bail.

11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the District Judge, Samastipur and the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur through FAX and e-Mail for its compliance forthwith.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U T