Pappu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16208 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-337 Year-2024 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Pappu Kumar son of Ram Narayan Sah village- Bela, Ward no. 11, Pssonbarsa, Dist- sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER 13-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This is the first regular bail application of the petitioner seeking his regular bail in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 337 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. According to the case of prosecution, the informant Ravindra Mahto lodged a report wherein it is alleged that on 02.11.2024 at about 07:00 P.M. when he was returning, on the way, four unknown persons came there and they looted one mobile phone of Vivo company and also looted motorcycle bearing no. BR30U-2197. On the basis of said report, offence has been registered and during course of investigation, on the basis of statement of co-accused Sohail Alam, looted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16208 of 2025(3) dt.13-05-2025 2/3 motorcycle has been seized form the possession of the present applicant, therefore, the petitioner is taken in custody.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The seizure memo does not contain the signature of the present applicant, therefore, it cannot be said that the motorcycle has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. Petitioner is in custody since 03.11.2024, having no criminal antecedent. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed and the trial will take some more time, therefore, on these grounds, it is prayed that the petitioner may be granted benefit of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner.

6. Heard.

7. Perused the case diary and other materials available on record.

8. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and further considering the material available on record, I am of the view that it is a case where the petitioner should be granted benefit of bail.

9. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16208 of 2025(3) dt.13-05-2025 3/3

10. The petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 337 of 2024.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) shailendra/- U T