Gaurishankar Chaurasia vs State Of Bihar on 27 January, 2011

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  Cr.Misc. No.28930 of 2010
                 GAURISHANKAR CHAURASIA, SON OF LATE JAGANNATH
                 CHAURASIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PATELIA, P.S.-
                 BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR, AT PRESENT RESIDENT
                 OF MOHALLA-LAKSHMIPUR, WARD NO.16, P.S.-ROSERA,
                 DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR.                   ..........PETITIONER.
                                              Versus
                                     THE STATE OF BIHAR
                                            -----------

4 27.01.2011 Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner, who is in custody in connection with

Baheri P.S. Case No.65 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 328

and 379, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of

bail.

In the case by intoxicating the Bolero driver, a Bolero

was stolen by accused persons including the petitioner. The FIR

was lodged against unknown. However, during investigation one

of the accused was arrested and subsequently one another accused,

namely, Rampratap Mahto was arrested, who disclosed the name

of petitioner besides other accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was running a hotel in the Civil Court campus at Rosera

and he was in inimical term with Rampratap Mahto who has

falsely implicated the petitioner. In the present case it was

submitted that the petitioner has been made accused on the basis

of confession of accused made before the police and, as such, the

petitioner is entitled for bail.

2

Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor

has opposed the prayer for bail. It was submitted that the vehicle

in question was recovered on confession made by this petitioner.

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have

also perused the impugned order, which indicates that while

rejecting the prayer for bail the learned court below has referred

paragraph 72 of the case diary, which show that vehicle in

question was recovered as per disclosure made by the petitioner.

Keeping in view the seriousness of accusation I am not

inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,

the prayer for bail stands rejected.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in jail

since long it is desirable to observe that concerned court will take

all steps so that without any delay the case may come to its logical

end.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.)
PN