IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2606 of 2008 SONU PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7 05.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is an accused for the offences under Sections 395, 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The application for bail of the petitioner was rejected twice as per the order dated 20th April, 2006 in Cr. Misc. No. 12223 of 2006 (Annexure-1A) and again by order dated 21.03.2007 in Cr. Misc. No. 10007 of 2007 (Annexure-1). The submission of the petitioner is that by order dated 08.12.006 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 38892 of 2006 co- accused namely, Manoj Karu @ Dinesh Choudhary, from whom also alleged recovery of looted articles were made, was allowed bail, and as such, this petitioner, against whom also the allegation is of recovery of the alleged looted articles, also deserves to be granted bail. On perusal of the order dated 8.12.2006 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 38892 of 2006 granting bail to the said Manoj Karu @ Dinesh Choudhary, it appears that on the submission of the petitioner that another co-accused namely Sonu Kumar having similar allegation as of the said petitioner as stated in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed in the said - 2 - case he was allowed bail. On 21.05.2008 while considering the present application for bail it was noticed that an erroneous submission was made that co-accused Sonu Kumar has been allowed bail although looted articles were also recovered from his possession. The only allegation against him was that some of the looted articles were sold to the father of Sonu Kumar at that time he, who is minor, was also present there. Learned Addl.P.P., on perusal of the case diary submits that from the case diary it appears that recovery of the looted articles were made from the possession of this petitioner, Sonu Paswan and co-accused Manoj Karu @ Dinesh Choudhary. Learned Addl. P.P. further submits that from perusal of the case diary it further appears that the looted articles given to the co-accused Sanjeet Kumar were recovered from his house, however at the time of recovery said Sanjeet Kumar was not present there and the co-accused Sonu Kumar, son of said Sanjeet Kumar was arrested. From the above, it would appear that bail was granted to the aforesaid co-accused Manoj Karu @ Dinesh Choudhary in Cr. Misc. No. 38892 of 2006 by order dated 08.12.2006 on the submission and statements made in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit that co-accused Sonu Kumar, from whose possession also recovery was made, has been allowed bail by order dated 30.11.2005 in Cr. Misc. No.43651 of 2005. - 3 - Regarding the order granting bail, as aforesaid, to the said Manoj Karu @ Dinesh Chouhdary, in the above circumstances, would be considered separately. So far as this petitioner, Sonu Paswan is concerned, in view of the specific recovery of the looted articles from his possession, which was seized by the police in course of investigation and further material brought on record, I am not inclined to take different view in absence of any fresh material worth considering. The prayer for grant of bail is, accordingly, rejected at this stage. As regards the order granting bail to the co-accused, Manoj Karu @ Dinesh Choudhary by order dated 08.12.2006 in Cr. Misc. No. 38892 of 2006, the same needs to be considered in the facts and circumstances noticed above, and as such, the said Cr.Misc. No. 38892 of 2006 ( Manoj Karu @ Dinesh Choudhary Vs. The State of Bihar) be placed under the heading “to be mentioned” on Tuesday next i.e. 09.09.2008 along with the records of Cr. Misc. Nos. 2606 of 2008, 12223 of 2006, 9969 of 2006, 10007 of 2007 & 43651 of 2005. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)