Bhushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11647 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-527 Year-2021 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Bhushan Kumar Son of Harendra Rai Resident of Village - Sihuliya, P.S. - Muffasil, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ramesh Chandra, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 527 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, when driver Uday Kumar and Anil Kumar were returning after distributing gas cylinders, four unknown persons on two motorcycles surrounded them and on the point of pistol, they snatched cash-memo and cash Rs. 40,385/-.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. He has falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11647 of 2025(2) dt.05-03-2025 2/2 been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. He is not named in the FIR, but during the course of investigation in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 536 of 2021, the petitioner was arrested by the police and he confessed his own involvement as well as involvement of co-accused persons in the instant case. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in custody since 03.12.2024, but no Test Identification Parade has been conducted yet. He has two criminal antecedents as mentioned in para 3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T