Dismissed

Manoj Sharma v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Jan 2021CR. MISC./24995/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Criminal Miscellaneous petition filed by three accused persons charged under IPC sections 394, 411, and 414. The court held that since petitioners were caught on the spot with the looted bike, bail is not a fit case and rejected the prayer, allowing renewal after charge framing.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected. Liberty to renew prayer after framing of charges granted.

Manoj Sharma Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24995 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2020 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria

¶3

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

¶4

MANOJ SHARMA S/o Satya Narain Sharma Resident of Village-Gopalpur ward no.03, Police Station-Kumarkhand, District-Madhepura.

¶5

Randhir Yadav S/o Late Bal Krishna Yadav Resident of Village-Gopalpur ward no.03, Police Station-Kumarkhand, District-Madhepura.

¶6

Mantu Kumar Yadav S/o Arun Yadav Resident of Village-Ranipatti ward no.12, Police Station-Kumarkhand, District-Madhepura.

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

4 18-01-2021

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶13

counsel for the State.

¶14

Petitioners are accused in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 65 of 2020 registered under Sections 394, 411 and 414 of the I.P.C.

¶15

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case only on suspicion. It is also submitted that petitioners are in custody since 04.05.2020.

¶16

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer of the petitioners by contending that

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24995 of 2020(4) dt.18-01-2021 2/2

¶18

petitioners were caught on the spot with looted bike of the informant. Hence, this is not a fit case for bail.

¶19

Having considered the above facts and circumstances

¶20

of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected.

¶21

However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to renew

¶22

his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

¶23

(Arvind Srivastava, J)

¶24

shailendra/-

¶25

U T

Manoj Sharma v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Sharma 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

Anuj Kumar alias Anoj Kumar Barbaria Vs The Union of India

Sunil Kumar Agrawal alias Sunil Kumar Vs The Union of India

Ganesh Kumar Agrawal Vs The Union of India

Ganesh Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Mritunjay Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Sah Vs The State of Bihar