Mannu Kumar Mehta @ Mannu Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85331 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2023 Thana- BHAPTIAHI District- Supaul ====================================================== Mannu Kumar Mehta @ Mannu Mehta Son of Krishna Kumar Mehta @ Ramu Mehta Resident of Village- Tengaraha, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Bhaptiyahi, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 19-03-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with S.T. No. 333 of 2024 arising out of Bhaptiyahi P.S. Case No. 65 of 2023, lodged on 01.06.2023, under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 & 27 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, Section 302 of the IPC was also added.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against four unknown accused persons with an allegation that they had committed robbery on the gun point from the informant and subsequently killed one person.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel further submits that the petitioner's name has come in this case by virtue of confessional statement. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner's possession, nor he was put on TIP. It is further stated that the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85331 of 2024(3) dt.19-03-2025 2/2 not clean, there are five criminal cases pending against him in which he is on bail in all cases.

5. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that this is a unique case where the petitioner has not only committed robbery but has also killed the driver of the vehicle by gunshot. Counsel further submits that in the rejection order, it is categorically stated that one cartridge was recovered from the pick-up vehicle on which the loot occurred, and the present petitioner, along with others, has been identified traveling on a motorcycle. Counsel further submits that the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are not clean, there are five criminal cases pending against him. It has also been stated by the Counsel that the doctor has found two persons injured whose treatment has been made by him.

6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U