Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24411/2024dismissed

Ram Pravesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-27Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24411 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-328 Year-2022 Thana- KOTWA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ram Pravesh Yadav Son Of Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Rai Resident Of Village- Bairagi Tola, Ps- Kalyanpur, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Subodh Kumar Barnwal, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt for bail of the petitioner as earlier such prayer was rejected by order dated 21.07.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 39351 of 2023.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Tr. no. 1636 of 2022 arising out of Kotwa P.S. Case No. 328 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. The following order was passed on 21.07.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 39351 of 2023:

"Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24411 of 2024(2) dt.27-03-2024 2/2

3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kotwa P.S. Case No. 328 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 395, 412 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, loot of Rs. 5.12 lacs was committed by the criminals in the CSP Centre of the informant.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence against the petitioner and he is named only on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused namely Munna Kumar.

6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner by contending that the petitioner is accused of two more cases and one case out of the two cases is also registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances, as mentioned above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

9. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial."

5. In these circumstances, no ground for review of the earlier order dated 21.07.2023 is made out.

6. Accordingly, this application is again dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T