Patna High CourtCR. MISC./76710/2019rejected

Chiranjivee Sagar @ Chiranjivi Sagar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-03-05Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76710 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-423 Year-2016 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== CHIRANJIVEE SAGAR @ CHIRANJIVI SAGAR Son of Late Vindeshwar Bhagat Resident of Village - Hajpurwa, P.S.- Runni Saidpur, DistrictSitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 05-03-2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No. 423 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under sections 109, 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to local politics merely on basis of suspicion. In this case, no one has been killed, and therefore, section 302 I.P.C. is not attracted at all. Petitioner is in custody since 30.01.2017.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76710 of 2019(4) dt.05-03-2020 2/2 the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report. During investigation, materials have come showing complicity of this petitioner in the alleged conspiracy. Witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. Petitioner has a long list of criminal antecedents. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T