IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.25115 of 2010
BIJAY PRASAD, SON OF SHIV NANDAN MAHTO
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
3. 14.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence
under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner was refused bail by an order dated
11.11.2009 vide Cr. Misc. 39184 of 2009 but the prayer for bail has
been renewed on the ground that the person who had named the
petitioner in his confessional statement did not do so in the course of
commission of dacoity. However, on going through the case diary, it
has been submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the witnesses examined
in paragraphs-26 and 27 have named a number of accused persons
including one Sudama Yadav and the petitioner going towards the
place of occurrence. The said Sudama Yadav was named in the First
Information Report as one of the miscreants by the Informant who was
not a person of the locality. Since this circumstance connects the
petitioner in the present case instituted under Section 396 of the Indian
Penal Code, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
The prayer for bail is once again rejected.
( Anjana Prakash, J.)
S.Ali