Amar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26493 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2017 Thana- Suiya District- Banka ====================================================== Amar Kumar, Son of Niranjan Kumar Singh, Resident of village- Bihayma P.S.- Tarapur, District- Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhirendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

03-05-2018 Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shyameshwar Dayal, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The sole petitioner, who is in custody since 13-11-2017 in Suiya P.S. Case No. 102 of 2017 registered for offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail, primarily on the ground that other two accused persons, almost in similar circumstances, have been extended the privilege of bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that four accused persons were shown to be apprehended in a vehicle i.e. Scorpio, bearing registration no. BR-10P-6905. He submits that the petitioner was arrested in another case and thereafter, he was remanded in the present case. On aforesaid ground, a prayer has been made for granting bail to the petitioner.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26493 of 2018(2) dt.03-05-2018 2/2 Sri Shymeshwar Dayal, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, opposing the prayer, submits that a truck was intercepted by a Scorpio, bearing registration no. BR-10P-6905 and thereafter, four accused persons committed robbery in the truck and fled away. Subsequently, the said Scorpio was intercepted by the another police station, from where, four accused persons were arrested. The informant of the present case went there and identified the accused persons including the petitioner.

There is material on record that petitioner made confession disclosing the name of other accused persons. In the case, looted articles were also recovered.

Considering the fact that it was a case of road robbery, identification of the petitioner by the informant and recovery, there is no reason to consider the prayer for bail even in a case, in which, other accused persons have been granted bail. The prayer for bail stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) anay U T