Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23357/2024bail rejected

Deepak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-04Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23357 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2024 Thana- MUSRIGHRARI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Deepak Kumar, Son Of Ram Sewak Ray @ Ram Sevak Ray, Resident Of Village - Mohanpur, P.S. - Samastipur (Muffasil), District - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rana Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Atul Chandra, APP ====================================================== 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 Mushrigharari P.S. Case No. 08/2024, lodged on 23.01.2024 under Sections 461, 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the FIR has been lodged against unknown accused persons with an allegation of committing theft.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel further submits that the mobile phone which was alleged to be recovered from the petitioner does not tally with the list of theft articles as mentioned in the FIR and seizure list. The petitioner is accused in one more criminal case and is in custody since 31.01.2024.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23357 of 2024(2) dt.04-04-2024 2/2

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the rejection order it has come that the stolen articles have been recovered form the house of the petitioner.

6. Upon specific query from the counsel for the petitioner whether the charge has been framed or not, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not aware about the fact whether the charge has been framed or not.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner in connection with Mushrigharari P.S. Case No. 08/2024/, pending before the learned CJM, Samastipur is hereby rejected.

9. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after one month of the framing of the charge.

10. With this observation, the bail application stands disposed off.

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