Raja Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23288 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2023 Thana- DEWARIA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Raja Kumar S/o- Ravindra Paswan Resident of Village- Kolhua Paigambarpur, P.S. Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Ranjan No. II, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate Ms. Kumari Rupa, Advocate Mr. Bhubneshwar Mahto, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pushpa Sinha.1, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 04-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Dewaria P.S. Case No. 148 of 2023, lodged on 27.07.2023, under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against unknown accused persons against whom there is allegation that they entered in the Common Service Centre and looted away Rs.1,30,000/- and one mobile phone on gun point.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that nothing incriminating has been recovered from his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23288 of 2024(2) dt.04-04-2024 2/2 possession and he was not put on Test Identification Parade. Counsel further submits that the antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is in custody since 08.01.2024. Counsel further submits that in the rejection order it has come that the name of the petitioner has figured in this case by virtue of confessional statement of co-accused from whose possession the looted mobile has been recovered.

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

6. Upon the specific query from the counsel for the petitioner whether the charge has been framed or not, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge has not been framed till date.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after framing of the charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T