Dismissed

Govind Ram v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Dec 2020CR. MISC./26379/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular bail application for a theft case, the petitioner admitted presence at the scene while claiming false implication. The court refused bail, citing ample material showing complicity and the petitioner's history as an accused in eight other criminal cases.

What did the court decide?

The petition for regular bail was dismissed, holding the petitioner unfit for bail due to complicity and criminal history.

Govind Ram Vs the State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26379 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2019 Thana- MADHUBANI TOWN District-

¶3

Madhubani

¶4

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

¶5

GOVIND RAM Son of Shri Kari Ram @ Karo Ram Resident of MohallaPrivate Bus Stand, Suratganj, P.S.- Nagar, District- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ratanakar Jha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 01-12-2020

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nand Kumar, the learned APP for the State.

¶12

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 175 of 2019, corresponding to CRI No. 857 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

The allegation is regarding the informant having gone to Delhi along with his wife for treatment of his grandson and during the course of his absence, unknown miscreants had broken the lock of the house of the informant and committed theft.

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26379 of 2020(3) dt.01-12-2020 2/3

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is languishing in custody since 20.07.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on suspicion.

¶16

Per contra, the learned APP has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶17

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by the leaned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the materials available on record as also in the case diary, this Court finds that ample materials are available on record to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime and moreover, the petitioner is a veteran criminal inasmuch as he is an accused in eight other criminal cases, hence, I do not deem it fit and proper to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner herein, thus, the present petition stands

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26379 of 2020(3) dt.01-12-2020 3/3

¶19

dismissed.

¶20

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

¶21

Ajay/- U T

Govind Ram v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Ram 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

Dinesh Prasad Sinha Vs the Vigilance Investigation Bureau Govt. of Bihar ,Patna

Raj Kishore Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Meera Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Dhaneshwar Sah Vs the State of Bihar