The Patna High Court refused bail to the petitioner, holding that the recovery of a mobile set considered as stolen property under Para-37 of the case diary made the case fit for denial of bail.
Prayer for bail rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21903 of 2014 (03) dt.28-08-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21903 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -227 Year- 2013 Thana -PIPRA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== GULLI SAH @ SHYAM BABU @ SHYAM BABU SAH .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar-Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar-3-A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 03 28-08-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Apart from recovery at the place where petitioner along with others were apprehended. On his pointing, as per Para12 of the case diary, mobile set in bulk has been recovered which happens to be one of the stolen properties in terms of Para-37 of the case diary. As such, I do not see it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner for the present. Accordingly, prayer of petitioner for bail is rejected.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Vikash/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner.
GULLI SAH @ SHYAM BABU @ SHYAM BABU SAH
The State of Bihar
Aditya Kumar Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
