Prince Kumar @ Dablu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28000 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-653 Year-2014 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Prince Kumar @ Dablu Yadav, S/o Nand Kishore Yadav, R/o Vill.- Barsam, P.S.- Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri S.M. Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 653 of 2014 registered under Sections 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura.

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier refused on merit vide order dated 30.08.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18223 of 2017 by this court, but the petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2015 and one co-accused, Rahul Kumar @ Aman Kumar,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28000 of 2018(2) dt.09-05-2018 2/2 has already been allowed privilege of bail by a Bench of this Court.

Admittedly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier refused on merit taking into consideration the fact that petitioner confessed his guilt and on that very basis, one bag of deceased containing pass-book and two forms of S.K.S. Micro Finance Company was recovered from the house of the petitioner whereas the name of co-accused, Rahul Kumar @ Aman Kumar has been surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of petitioner.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T