Patna High CourtCR. REV./230/2023dismissed

Suraj Yadav @ Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-10-13Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.230 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2020 Thana- MAHISHI District- Saharsa ====================================================== Suraj Yadav @ Suraj Kumar S/O Vidyanand Yadav R/O Village- Galfaria, P.S- Bakhtiyarpur, Distt.- Saharsa under the guardianship of Vidyanand Yadav, S/o Sigheshwar Prasad Yadav.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prafull Chandra Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 13-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking setting aside of the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Saharsa in Cr. Appeal No. 13 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the order dated 09.02.2022 rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa in J.J.B. No. 436 of 2020 arising out of Mahishi P.S. Case No. 130 of 2020 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27, 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act has been affirmed. He has got antecedent of five cases on his head and is in custody since 29.09.2021.

3. It appears that on earlier occasion, the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.230 of 2023(3) dt.13-10-2023 2/2 had moved this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 363 of 2022 against the same impugned order dated 20.04.2022. This Court vide its order dated 14.11.2022 refused to interfere with the said order. No liberty was reserved to the petitioner to move this Court afresh on the same order.

4. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision application afresh for setting aside of the same impugned order, which has already been upheld by this Court, cannot be entertained. Had the liberty been reserved to the petitioner, the matter would have been otherwise.

5. This revision application is thus dismissed but with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy before appropriate court.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rishi/- U T