The court rejected a bail application in a case involving robbery under Section 392 IPC. The petitioner argued he was not named in the FIR, but the learned APP opposed the petition by noting that a stolen motorcycle was recovered from the petitioner's house.
Bail prayer is rejected and the petitioner remains in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9799 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2020 Thana- BANKA District- Banka
======================================================
NIRAJ YADAV@ TILO YADAV@ NIRAJ KUMAR S/o- ANANDI YADAV Resident of Village- Belutikar, P.S. and Distt- Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 03-06-2021
This matter is taken up for consideration through
Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in Banka P.S. Case No. 191 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, co-accused Kundan Yadav along with two unknown accused persons looted three goats, some cash and motorcycle of the informant on the gun point.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of this petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9799 of 2021(2) dt.03-06-2021 2/2
come in this case on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused Kundan Yadav. Nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession. Petitioner has not been put on Test Identification Parade till date and investigation is complete. Petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2020.
Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that stolen motorcycle of the informant was recovered from the house of this petitioner which is apparent from the seizure list and petitioner has got criminal antecedent.
Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that stolen motorcycle was recovered from the house of this petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
vinita/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the stolen motorcycle was recovered from his house despite not being named in the FIR.
Whether the recovery of stolen property from the petitioner's possession warrants denial of bail.
Whether the fact that the investigation is complete is a sufficient ground for granting bail in this case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NIRAJ YADAV@ TILO YADAV@ NIRAJ KUMAR
The State of Bihar
PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
