Aditya Kumar @ Dholan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19552 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2025 Thana- KARTAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Aditya Kumar @ Dholan S/O Raju Patel Resident of Village- Gurmiya, P.S.- Kartahan, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. II, Advocate Mrs. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate Ms. Kumari Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 30-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kartahan P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 308(5), 303(2), 317(2), 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. As per prosecution case, petitioner alongwith others assaulted the informant and others and they snatched mobile and demanded Rs. 2500/-. It is alleged that after transfer of the said amount through online mode, the mobile was not returned and they were forcibly made to flee from the place of occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19552 of 2025(2) dt.30-04-2025 2/3 petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits at the time of preparation of seizure list, there is no compliance of Section 103 of BNSS, 2023. He further submits that from the perusal of FIR, it appears that the occurrence took place on 12.01.2025 and information was given to the police on 13.01.2025 and no explanation has been given regarding the said delay. Petitioner is in custody since 13.01.2025 and bears criminal antecedent of one cases in which he is on bail. Learned counsel orally submits that charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-I, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Kartahan P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025, subject to following conditions:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19552 of 2025(2) dt.30-04-2025 3/3 (i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the affidavit in bail application.
(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself. (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.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) alok/- U T