IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.37059 of 2010
BHOLA RAI @ PREM CHANDRA KUMAR son of
Rajendra Rai, resident of village-Bhimalpur, P.S.-
Mehsi, Dist.-East Champaran, Motihari.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
3. 7.12.2010. Heard Mr. Sarda Nand Mishra learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh learned counsel for the
State.
The petitioner, who is in custody in connection with
Mehsi P.S.Case No.51 of 2010 for the offences under sections 364
and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail.
The accusation in the first information report is that
the truck of the informant loaded with some consignment were
intercepted by the accused persons and, thereafter, the truck was
found in abandoned condition . About 32 bundles of cloths were
looted from the truck and truck driver as well as cleaner is still
traceless. The petitioner’s name has transpired on the basis of
confession of co-accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
on the basis of confession of co-accused, the petitioner has been
made accused. It was submitted that the petitioner is having clean
antecedent and only due to the reason that the petitioner was not in
good terms with the co-accused, namely, Sahindra Ram, the
petitioner has been made accused by co-accused Sahindra Ram.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that co-accused,
namely, Pintu Pathak @ Surendra Kumar has been extended
2
privilege of anticipatory bail vide Cr.Misc. No.36790 of 2010 on
8.11.2010. It was submitted that the petitioner is in jail since
20.6.2010.
Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. It was submitted that
on the basis of confession of co-accused, who had named the
petitioner as one of the associates, a search was conducted in the
house of some of the accused persons and recovery of looted
bundles of cloths were also affected. It was submitted that co-
accused in his confession had disclosed that while doing operation
of kidnapping and loot, they were also using tranquilizer/injection.
On search of the house of the petitioner, it was submitted by learned
counsel for the State, at least two amples of tranquilizer/injection
were recovered. This shows that the petitioner was directly involved
in the present case.
In view of materials brought on record and the
seriousness of accusation and also the fact that investigation is still
continuing for tracing other accused as well as kidnapped driver and
cleaner, I am not inclined to extend privilege of bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.
However, liberty is granted to renew his prayer for
bail after conclusion of final investigation, if something is brought
on record showing innocence of the petitioner.
Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)