Partly allowed

Pawan Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC25 May 2016CR. MISC./12213/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna heard an application for anticipatory bail in a dacoity case. The court rejected the prayer, holding that the petitioner does not deserve the privilege despite only one co-accused having been charged so far, as investigation remains ongoing and the informant was not expected to name all accused immediately.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail prayer rejected. Order accordingly passed.

Pawan Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12213 of 2016

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -53 Year- 2015 Thana -JAYRAMPUR District- SEKHPURA ====================================================== Pawan Paswan, Son of Sri Ganouri Ram, Resident of Village:- Ukhadhi P.S:- Jairampur, District- Sheikhpura. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ambika Bhagat For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dayal (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER

¶3

3 25-05-2016 Heard Mr. Ambika Bhagat, for the petitioner and Mr. Dayal, APP for the State.

¶4

The petitioner herein seeks anticipatory bail in Jairampur P.S. Case No. 053 of 2015, registered under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

The informant was coming to his home by motorcycle along with another person. 4-5 accused persons intercepted him. They were armed with pistol, iron rod etc. and asked them to handover all their belongings. The accused persons snatched his mobile, money, A.T.M. and other belongings. Co-accused Mantu Paswan was later arrested and in his confessional statement, he disclosed the names of the accused(s) persons who

¶6

had participated in the crime. The name of the petitioner

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12213 of 2016 (3) dt.25-05-2016

¶8

2/2

¶9

transpired in the said statement.

¶10

It is stated that except the statement of co-accused Mantu Paswan, there is no other allegation against the petitioner.

¶11

Learned APP submitted that on conclusion of investigation, chargesheet has only been led against co-accused Mantu Paswas and investigation is kept open in so far as the other accused persons are concerned.

¶12

It is a case of highway robbery/dacoity. The informant is not expected to name the accused persons in the commission of crime and it shall come/surface in course of investigation. The investigation is still on.

¶13

In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. The prayer is rejected.

¶14

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶15

rohit/-

¶16

U T

Pawan Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joyti Kumari and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Shambhu Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Pravesh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Priyanka Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Prem Sah and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Pankaj Kumar Rai Vs The State Of Bihar