Rohit Kumar @ Mahakal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17895 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2024 Thana- BEGUSARAI TOWN District- Begusarai ====================================================== Rohit Kumar @ Mahakal S/o- Ramesh Kumar Singh @ Ramesh Prasad Singh Resident of Village- Hazipur Colony PS- Hazipur District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shivanand Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP For HDFC :

Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the HDFC Bank and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 176 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that, on the alleged date and time of occurrence, five to six miscreants entered the HDFC Bank, Har Har Mahadev Branch, assaulted the staff and and committed a loot of Rs. 16,33,033/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of suspicion and his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17895 of 2025(2) dt.10-04-2025 2/3 confessional statement was recorded. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has got no concern with the looted amount and the same has not been recovered from this petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that T.I.P. has not been conducted till date. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 17.11.2024 and has three criminal antecedents.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for HDFC Bank vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and jointly submitted that the petitioner is a member of gang which is involved in the committing robbery in banks, and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Let the petitioner be released on bail, after framing of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 176 of 2024,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17895 of 2025(2) dt.10-04-2025 3/3 subject to the following conditions:

(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the family of the petitioner.

(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(III) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T