Nasrul @ Karu Miyan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66899 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2019 Thana- SUIYA District- Banka ====================================================== Nasrul @ Karu Miyan Son of Islam Miyan @ Islam Ansari Resident of Village - Laharniya, P.S.- Suiya, Distt.- Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
Mohan Yadav Son of Late Maji yadav @ Late Moji Mahto Resident of Village - Laharniya, P.S.- Suiya, Distt.- Banka. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 14-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Suiya P.S. Case No.33 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354(B) and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Further submission is that Section 341 of the IPC is bailable and offence under Sections 354(B) and 366A of the IPC are not made out against the petitioner. He further submits that there is contradiction in date of occurrence, since, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66899 of 2019(2) dt.14-11-2019 2/2 victim states the date of occurrence as 14.04.2019, whereas in report the date of occurrence is 17.04.2019. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 29.04.2019. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this application is rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) S.Katyayan/- U T