Patna High CourtCR. MISC./80671/2019rejected

Satyendra Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

2020-01-20Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80671 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-446 Year-2019 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran ====================================================== Satyendra Pandey, Son of Late Parshuram Pandey Resident of Village - Khairatiya, Police Station - Bettiah Mufassil Manuapul, District - West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Adya Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Bettiah Mufasil Manuapul P.S. Case No. 446 of 2019 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal code and under Section 25(1-b), a, 26 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah (West Champaran).

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case and nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2019.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80671 of 2019(2) dt.20-01-2020 2/2 Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner with submission that on the basis of the seriousness of allegation which is corroborated in para- 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 25, and 39 of the Case Diary, this is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected.

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T