High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 08 PAT CK 0036

Shankar Kumar Mahto @ Shankar Mahto vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 21 August 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15564 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 338 words
1.

The matter has been heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2.

Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3.

This is the third attempt for bail by the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Laheriasarai PS Case No. 03 of 2018 dated 10.01.2018, instituted under Sections 392 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier, such prayer was rejected on 01.08.2018 in Cr. Misc. No. 33924 of 2018 and on 13.03.2019 in Cr. Misc. No. 15437 of 2019.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is languishing in custody since 14.01.2018. Learned counsel submitted that no Test Identification Parade has been held. It was further submitted that co-accused Arjun Sahni and Jitendra Kumar have been granted bail by the Court below itself.

5.

Learned APP submitted that in the CCTV, the accused persons have been seen and, thus, their identification based on the CCTV coverage is sufficient indication of the involvement of the petitioner. It was submitted that robbery was committed after putting knife on the throat of the informant and putting her under threat of death. Learned counsel further submitted that the two co-accused have been granted bail by the Court below much prior to the first rejection of the prayer for bail to the petitioner by the High Court. Thus, it was submitted that no fresh ground has been brought before the Court for reconsideration on merits or otherwise and that the petitioner being seen in the CCTV footage, no indulgence be granted to him.

6.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court does not find any reason to take a different view in the matter as no fresh or justifiable circumstances have been shown after the prayer for bail was lastly rejected on 13.03.2019.

7.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.