Dismissed

Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC19 Jul 2018CR. MISC./42955/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Patna rejected the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail in a theft case where the pen-register report linked the crime to the petitioner's mobile number. The bench held that the nature of the allegation regarding illegal dispossession was gross and refused bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for grant of pre-arrest bail was rejected; Aareal discharged from the case.

Sandeep Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42955 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Sandeep Kumar S/o Ramdeyal Raut, R/o Vill.- Patpariya, P.S.- Muffasil, District- East Champaran.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar

¶6

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶7

2 19-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶8

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 05 of 2018 registered under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

In the FIR the informant has alleged that he received a call on his cell phone. The caller requested him to immediately come to Kotwa More with his auto-rickshaw. When he reached there, he found two persons waiting for him. They got seated in the auto-rickshaw and proceeded ahead. When they reached at Watganj Chowk, on the instruction of said persons, he stopped his auto rickshaw and started taking breakfast and in the meantime, the said persons demanded the key of the auto-rickshaw from the

¶10

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42955 of 2018 (2) dt.19-07-2018

¶11

2/2

¶12

informant on the pretext that they have to bring their household articles within ten minutes and thereafter they proceeded from there. Believing upon them, he gave the key to them but they never returned.

¶13

Though the case was registered against unknown, in course of investigation it transpired that the SIM number from which the call was made was issued in the name of the petitioner.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not expected that a person will disclose his identity and give a call from his own number, if he has mensrea to do any illegal act.

¶15

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that it is a gross case in which the petitioner has used his cell phone and has illegally dispossessed the owner of the autorickshaw and took away the same on false pretext.

¶16

Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application for grant of pre-arrest bail is rejected.

¶17

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

¶18

Pradeep/Sneha

¶19

U T

Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar 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

Pakija E Zaman @ Pakija E Zaman and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajiv Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Gaya Prasad and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Shyam Saran Prasad Suman Vs The State Of Bihar

Priyanka Devi @ Priyanka Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar

Manoj Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar