Patna High CourtCR. MISC./84079/2024bail rejected

Mantu Kumar @ Mantu Jaiswal v. The State Of Bihar

2024-12-10Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84079 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2024 Thana- CHIRAIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Mantu Kumar @ Mantu Jaiswal S/O Dharmendra Prsasad @ Dharmendra Prasad Jaiswal R/O Village- Amwa Tonwa, P.S- Jharokhar, Distt.- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 10-12-2024 Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 60 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 461 and 379 of the IPC, lodged on 13.02.2024 by the informant, Shabana Azmi.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that they are having electronic shop which was ransacked and all the materials including cash were removed totalling around Rs. 14 to 15 Lacs. This led to the FIR/arrest.

4. The investigation stopped at the door of the petitioner who is also having criminal antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR is against unknown, the police implicated him only because of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84079 of 2024(2) dt.10-12-2024 2/2 his criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP, on the other hand, opposes the prayer submitting that not only the petitioner has criminal antecedent, he has taken away all the articles/cash of the electronic shop and the police investigation has found his complicity in the alleged occurrence.

7. Considering the allegation that has come against the petitioner coupled with the fact that he has criminal antecedent, for the present, this Court is not of the opinion of extending the privilege of bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) perwez U T