Dharmraj Singh @ Guddu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28220 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-309 Year-2023 Thana- KARAKAT District- Rohtas ====================================================== Dharmraj Singh @ Guddu S/O Late Baban Singh Resident Of VillageAharawan, Police Station- Sasaram(M), District- Rohtas At Sasaram. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anish Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the IPC in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No.309 of 2023.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of five cases and is in custody since 31.01.2024 and the informant alleges that accused persons including the petitioner looted his car.
4. The learned counsel submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case because of his antecedent. It is also submitted that the car was recovered on the same day itself.
5. The learned APP opposes the regular bail application and submits that petitioner appears to be a hardened
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28220 of 2024(3) dt.20-09-2024 2/2 criminal and is named in the FIR.
6. On query of the Court that as to whether charges have been framed or not, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he has taken instruction yesterday and it has been informed that charges have been framed, on which the learned APP submits that since charges have been framed the trial has commenced.
7. Since the trial has commenced, as such the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, however, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the informant is examined in the trial, but if the informant is not examined within a period of six months from today, in that event also the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Prakash Narayan U T