Satish Surendra Prasad @ Satish Surendra Prsad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77320 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-898 Year-2024 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== Satish Surendra Prasad @ Satish Surendra Prsad S/O Surendra Verma R/O Village- Narayanpur, P.S- Naubatpur, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Khushi Awadh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 19-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No.898 of 2024 registered for an offence punishable under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, on 29.06.2024 informant had submitted a written report that after de-boarding from the Pune-Patna Express train at Danapur, he came outside to take a tempo to reach Patna but in the alleged tempo two unknown persons were already seated and instead of going to Patna the tempo took turn to AIIMS road and in front of the Govindpur Madhyam Vidyalaya the unknown persons assaulted the informant and snatched 10,000/- cash along with other articles.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77320 of 2024(3) dt.19-03-2025 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR. Petitioner's tempo is being surfaced from the CCTV footage and during the investigation of the alleged tempo, petitioner is found to be the owner of the tempo bearing Registration No. BR/01PP/9370 The petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State, vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the fact that petitioner is owner of the said tempo and all the looted articles were recovered from the possession of the petitioner as apparent from the paragraph 27 of the case diary and further in paragraph nos. 2, 3, 4 and 43 of the case diary, several witnesses have supported the prosecution, so I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

7. However petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completion of one year in custody before the Trial court.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Harshita/- U T