Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Dom v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79150 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-478 Year-2019 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR @ RAHUL DOM Son of Late Brahil Dom @ Brahim Dom, Resident of - Dom Toli, Hilsa, P.O and P.S.- Hilsa, Distt - Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 28-05-2020 Heard both sides.

Petitioner seeks bail in Hilsa P.S. Case No.478 of 2019 registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC. The informant got down from the train at Hilsa Railway Station and when he came outside the railway station, three persons snatched Rs.5,000/- and a mobile from the pocket of the informant. In the meantime the police patrolling party arrived at the place of occurrence and on chase arrested one person, who disclosed his name as Rahul Kumar (petitioner). Two persons, namely, Suraj Dom @ Nethwa and Ranjan Dom who are alleged to have fled away with the snatched money. The looted mobile was recovered from possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79150 of 2019(3) dt.28-05-2020 2/2 miscreants threw the mobile near the petitioner and in the meantime police came and apprehended the petitioner only on suspicion, but it appears that immediately after the occurrence of snatching of mobile and money, the police arrived at the place of occurrence, only thereafter the petitioner and two other accused persons started fleeing away. On chase, the petitioner was apprehended and looted mobile of the informant was recovered from possession of the petitioner.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after remaining nine months in custody.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T