Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.30953 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -11 Year- 2016 Thana -AKHODHIGOLA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/o Brij Bihari Singh, R/o Vill.- Dihara, P.S.- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta For the Opposite Party/s : Sri Arun Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with AkhoriGola P.S. Case No. 11 of 2016 registered for an offence punishable under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. As per FIR, three miscreants suddenly came on motor cycle, pointed pistol upon the informant, snatched his money and escaped from the place of occurrence.
It has been submitted that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor there is any specific allegation against him. The petitioner has been made accused only on account of his involvement in several previous cases. The petitioner is in custody since 25.05.2017 and till the date he has not been put on TIP and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30953 of 2018 (3) dt.06-07-2018 2/2 so he deserves bail.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the submission.
On perusal of case diary it appears that in course of investigation, police on the basis of CDR of mobile-phone of this petitioner, has found his involvement. The petitioner and other coaccused had followed the informant from the Bank up-to the place of occurrence. The call details of this petitioner and other coaccused show that they were talking among themselves during the relevant period and after committing crime, they stopped talking. The antecedent of the petitioner mentioned in paragraph 3 of this application shows that the petitioner is involved in twenty-eight cases of similar nature which relates to period from 2008-2017. Considering the complicity of the petitioner in the above crime and antecedents showing his involvement in serious crime, I am not inclined to grant him bail. His bail prayer stands rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar, J) Mahesh/- U T