Shankar Ram v. The State of Bihar
Court: Patna High Court
Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
Judgment date:
Case summary
Patna High Court judgment dated 2025-12-03. Shankar Ram v. The State of Bihar. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 82468 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No. -480 Year-2006 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1. Shankar Ram Son of Late Bashudeo Ram R/o Village - Bhadausi, P. S. - Korma, District - Sheikhpura. 2. Kanhaiya Ram Son of Bachu Ram R/o Village - Bhadausi, P. S. - Korma, District - Sheikhpura. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 2 03-12-2025 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners are in judicial custody in connection with Lakhisarai P. S. Case No. 480 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 16. 12.
2006 by the informant, Kishore Mahto. 3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the accused entered the house and committed dacoity and in the process also assaulted the family members. This led to the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit they have been falsely implicated due to criminal antecedent of the same nature. Their names have come in the confessional Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 82468 of 2025(2) dt. 03-12-2025 2/2 statement and have no role to play. 5. Learned APP, Mr. Satyendra Prasad on the other hand submits that it is a case of 2006, the petitioners evaded arrest for two decades despite being named in it and have just gone to the judicial custody on 06. 10. 2025. 6.
Considering the submissions of the parties as also the fact that they absconded for 19 years despite their names having cropped up in course of the investigation, in that background, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend them the privilege of bail which is accordingly, rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T
Source: Patna High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.