Shailesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23408 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2022 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Shailesh Kumar Son of Tapeshwar Yadav Resident of Village - Kakariya Mathiya, P.S. - Jehanabad (Kalpa O.P.), Dist. - Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Neeraj, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 03-11-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 27 of 2022 lodged under Sections 413/414/34 of the I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, the police has apprehended the petitioner alongwith one other co-accused and motorcycle was seized which was alleged to be of theft. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that he has been arrested only due to the reason that he failed to produce the documents of the motorcycle before the police and under suspicion, he was arrested. Counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23408 of 2022(5) dt.03-11-2022 2/2 submits that on the confessional statement of the petitioner, raid was made at the house of other co-accused from where the theft motorcycle has also been recovered. He submits that petitioner is in custody since 12.01.2022, charge sheet has already been filed in this case and he is accused in another case in which he is on bail. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is a motorcycle thief and used to make this crime in group. Counsel further submits that his criminal antecedent is also of same nature.

Upon specific query that whether charge has been framed or not, learned counsel submits that he is unable to intimate this Court that whether charge has been framed or not. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present but liberty is hereby granted that he shall move for bail 6 months after framing of charge and the Trial Court is directed to release him on bail imposing its conditions so that he shall not evade during trial. With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

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