Patna High CourtCR. MISC./76705/2019rejected

Lal Babu Sahni @ Bhaskar @ Nirbhay @ Pralay @ Anil @ Ajay v. The State Of Bihar

2020-03-18Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76705 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2019 Thana- HATHAURI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== LAL BABU SAHNI @ BHASKAR @ NIRBHAY @ PRALAY @ ANIL @ AJAY Son of Mahesh Sahni Resident of Village - Aura Malikana, P.S.- Tariyani, Distt - Sheohar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Hathauri P.S. Case No. 172 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 384, 386 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the U.A.P. Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely on basis of suspicion. Petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. Petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2019. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that during investigation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76705 of 2019(5) dt.18-03-2020 2/2 materials have come showing complicity of this petitioner in the alleged crime. The mobile number from which the levy was demanded stands in the name of this petitioner. Petitioner has a long criminal history of committing such offences. 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