Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24620/2024rejected

Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu @ Rahul @ Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-20Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24620 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2024 Thana- AKBARPUR District- Nawada ====================================================== Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu @ Rahul @ Rahul Kumar Son Of Dharmendra Kumar @ Virendra Kumar Resident Of Village - Panchgawan, P.S. - Nemdarganj, District - Nawada .. ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Indradeo Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 20-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 03 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 379, 467, 468 and 411 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, it is a case of deceiving with the informant and stealing the truck of the informant by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. From perusal of the case diary, F.I.R., seizure list and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24620 of 2024(3) dt.20-05-2024 2/2 the impugned order dated 28.02.2024, it appears that on the basis of written report of the informant Kailash Yadav FIR was registered against the present petitioner. During investigation the accused-petitioner was arrested and confessed his guilt. It also appears from para 3 of the bail petition that there is total 13 criminal antecedents of similar nature of offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 and other Sections of IPC against the petitioner.

7. Considering the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

9. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, then the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court and the trial Court shall grant bail to the petitioner.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) saurabhkr/- U T