Prince Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82965 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-575 Year-2019 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Prince Kumar S/o Upendra Ram, Resident of Village- Barahuli, P.S.- Mohaniya, Distt- Kaimur at Bhabua.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pancha Nand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 13-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner in this case is seeking regular bail in connection with Bhabua P.S. Case No. 575 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 401, 413, 414, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the five persons are named in the FIR and even the petitioner is named but no incriminating article was recovered from the house or possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was apprehended from his house on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused but no incriminating was found there. Petitioner is in jail custody since 28.09.2019.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82965 of 2019(2) dt.13-12-2019 2/2 Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein it appears from the reading of the impugned order that in course of investigation the apprehended accused has not only stated that this petitioner is one of the members of the gang who is involved in theft of motorcycle and selling them illegally in the market but on his instance three stolen motorcycles have also been recovered, there being some self incriminating statement of the apprehended accused leading to the recover of motorcycle and in the process the name of the petitioner has been transpired as also that the petitioner is involved in two other cases one of which is of similar nature, considering the fact that the is in custody only since 28.09.2019, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to this petitioner. He may renew his prayer for bail after a reasonable period.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/ved U T