Rajeeb Sahni @ Rajiv Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84562 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-354 Year-2018 Thana- DESARI District- Vaishali ====================================================== RAJEEB SAHNI @ RAJIV SAHANI Son of Nagina Sahani Resident of Village-Paharpur, P.S.-Desari (Sahdei O.P.), District-Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Bela Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 18-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 402 & 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25 (1-b)a, 26 & 35 of the Arms Act and Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. On the tip of information that some miscreants are assembled for committing some offence, when the police party reached near the place they tried to escape but three persons were apprehended. One of the apprehended persons disclosed the name of the petitioner as one of his accomplice in this occurrence as well as other occurrences and the owner of the motorcycle.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84562 of 2019(3) dt.18-03-2020 2/2 that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was not apprehended on the spot. No incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious physical possession. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 03.10.2019. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that three more criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and from perusal of the case diary it appears that he works as a liner. Hence, he does not deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T