Lucky @ Gyan Ranjan vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4815 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 28795 of 2021

        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2020 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali

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

Lucky @ Gyan Ranjan, Male, aged about 23 years, Son of Ved Prakash Resident of Village - Sanchipatti, Shakti Nagar, PS Hajipur Town, District - Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shri Nandan Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 29-09-2021

Heard Mr. Shri Nandan Prasad Singh, learned senior

counsel along with Ms. Prakritita Sharma, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with

Hajipur Town PS Case No. 38 of 2020 dated 13.01.2020,

instituted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28795 of 2021 dt.29-09-2021

3. This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner as

earlier such prayer was rejected by judgment dated 12.10.2020

passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22575 of 2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

though the Court has considered on merits the case of the

petitioner earlier, as has also been recorded in order dated

12.10.2020, but submitted that a vital aspect has not been properly

considered by the prosecution as an application given by the

mother of the petitioner for verification of the location of his

mobile phone has not been looked into. It was submitted that the

petitioner was present in his house at Mokama, in the police

colony on the date and time of the incident and, thus, could not

have been party to the crime. Further, it was submitted that there

has neither been recovery of any cash nor any material which are

said to have been looted from the office of company.

5. Learned APP also reiterated what has been recorded

in the last order of rejection dated 12.10.2020.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

does not find any mitigating circumstances for allowing the prayer

for bail to the petitioner since the last order of rejection.

7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28795 of 2021 dt.29-09-2021

8. However, the Court below shall expedite the trial and

conclude the same, preferably within one year from the date of

communication of the order.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T