Shubham Kumar Singh @ Subham Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80152 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2019 Thana- GAIGHAT District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Shubham Kumar Singh @ Subham Kumar, aged about 22 years (Male) Son of Bipin Singh @ Vipin Kumar Singh Resident of Village - Narpati Nagar, P.S. - Sakari, District - Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shivanand Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Satyavrat Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gaighat PS Case No. 167 of 2019 dated 16.06.2019 instituted under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on his statement, two stolen motorcycles were recovered from the house of his brother in which the petitioner was also living.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the house belongs to his brother Suman Singh and he was merely living with him. It was further submitted that the brother Suman Singh was caught by the police in another case and only because

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80152 of 2019 dt.06-01-2020 2/2 of his relationship to the person arrested, he has also been falsely implicated. It was submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 17.06.2019.

5. Learned APP submitted that besides the petitioner being accused in five other cases of serious nature, even in the present case, when the police had gone to the house of Suman Singh, who was caught in another case, it was the petitioner who disclosed about the two hidden stolen motorcycles which have been recovered by the police. It was submitted that the petitioner, thus, was party to the crime.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T