Partly allowed

Mani Kumar Singh @ Lalu and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC14 Dec 2017CR. MISC./58019/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to petitioner no. 2 due to lack of incriminating material, while rejecting bail for petitioner no. 1 whose mobile was recovered linked to the robbery case. The trial is remanded to be concluded within a year.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected for Petitioner No. 1; Petitioner No. 2 released on bail with bonds and sureties.

Mani Kumar Singh @ Lalu and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58019 of 2017 (2) dt.14-12-2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.58019 of 2017

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -216 Year- 2017 Thana -SUGAULI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI)

¶4

======================================================

¶5

MANI KUMAR SINGH @ LALU, Son of Shree Jagarnath Singh, Resident of Bankatava, Police Station- Sugauli, District- East Champaran. 2. Anil Kumar, son of Nagina Rai, Resident of Bhela Chapra, P.S. Turkauliya, District- East Champaran.

¶6

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar.

¶9

.... .... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ataur Rahman

¶11

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 14-12-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.

¶13

Petitioners, already in custody, seek bail in Sugauli PS Case

¶14

No. 216 of 2017 registered under Section 392/34 of the IPC.

¶15

The allegation in brief is that in the night the informant was robbed on the way to his house by three unknown persons on the point of pistol and knife and a Samsung mobile of specific IMEI number, ATM card, driving licence, Adhar Card and 5000/- rupees were robbed and the miscreants escaped away.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 has clean antecedent and only a mobile has been recovered from his possession, however there is no material against petitioner No. 2 except disclosure of his name by petitioner no. 1.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances that subsequent to the disclosure in the confessional statement made by petitioner no. 1 the looted Samsung mobile was recovered from his possession, so his prayer for bail is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and preferably conclude the same within

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58019 of 2017 (2) dt.14-12-2017

¶19

a year.

¶20

Howsoever, so far petitioner no. 2 Anil Kumar is concerned there is no material against him except disclosure of his name by petitioner no. 1, so he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Sugauli PS Case No. 216 of 2017.

¶21

(Arun Kumar, J.)

¶22

Snkumar/-

¶23

U T

Mani Kumar Singh @ Lalu and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Kumar Singh @ Lalu and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Kumar Sinha Vs The Union Of India Through C.b.i.

Hiralal Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Arun Kumar @ Runjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Prabhash Roy @ Prabhat Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Wasi Ahmad Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Aamna Khatoon Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.