Mantu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76113 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2019 Thana- NASRIGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
Mantu Kumar Son of Sri Dharmendra Pandey @ Ganauri Pandey Resident of Village - Savna, P.S.- Imadpur, Distt - Bhojpur (Bihar), At present residing at Bank Colony, P.S.- Ara Nawada, Distt - Bhojpur (Bihar) 2.
Ayush Kumar @ Rohit Kumar Son of Sri Manoj Tiwari Resident of Village - Chitokhar, P.S. - Nasriganj, Distt - Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Saket Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
Petitioners, who are in custody, seeks bail in a case, registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation as per written complaint of one Office Assistant in Rural Bank is that on 13.08.2019 he was working in the Bank alone, when at about 02:40 PM, three unidentified persons concealing their face entered the Bank and on strength of arms took away Rs. 2,74,877/- from the cash counter as well as his mobile. Further, when informant raised alarm, villagers assembled there and miscreants fled away after throwing the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76113 of 2019(2) dt.28-11-2019 2/2 bag with looted cash. All the accused were apprehended and 9 MM automatic pistol and cartridge were also recovered. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Both have been apprehended by the police at the place of occurrence and arms has also been recovered from another accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
However, the court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year from the date of receipt of the order. If the trial is not concluded within one year, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (S. Kumar, J) S.Katyayan/- U T