Patna High CourtCR. REV./262/2023dismissed

Aditya Kumar @ Raushan Kumar @ Aditya v. The State Of Bihar

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.262 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2020 Thana- KHAGAUL District- Patna ====================================================== Aditya Kumar @ Raushan Kumar @ Aditya S/O Prem Rai @ Prem Kumar Resident of Village- Choti Badalpura, P.S.- Khagaul, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

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

2. Petitioner in this case is seeking setting aside of the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2021 arising out of Khagaul P.S. Case No. 57 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the order refusing bail to the petitioner dated 15.07.2021 passed in J.J.B. Case No. 71 of 2021 arising out of Khagaul P.S. Case No. 57 of 2020 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act has been affirmed. He has got clean antecedent and is in custody since 11.02.2021.

3. It appears that on earlier occasion, the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.262 of 2023(3) dt.13-10-2023 2/2 had moved this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 54 of 2022 against the same impugned order dated 17.12.2021. This Court vide its order dated 11.11.2022 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