Shashi Thakur @ Shashi Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72082 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2020 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Shashi Thakur @ Shashi Kumar Thakur S/o Shyam Thakur @ Syam Thakur R/o Village - Matihani, P.S- Matihani, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amar Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 05-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 197 of 2020 dated 07.07.2020, lodged under Sections 395, 120(B) and 412 of the I.P.C.
3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown accused persons in which allegation of dacoity is there.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the name of the petitioner has figured in this case by virtue of confessional statement only. There is nothing recovered against him and he was not put on T.I.P. also. He further submits that the only thing which is against him is that there are six criminal antecedents against him and it is due to this reason, his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72082 of 2024(2) dt.05-12-2024 2/2 name has been inserted in this case at the instance of police. He further submits that other accused persons have been granted bail by this Court as well as by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which is annexed as Annexure-2 series.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rosera, District-Samastipur and in the Sessions Court, it has been categorically mentioned that the petitioner was declared absconder and then only, he was arrested in the present case. It is also not clear to the learned counsel for the petitioner that what is the stage of the trial.
6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, therefore, his bail petition is hereby rejected.
7. However, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail six months after framing of charge.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/- U T