Aditya Kumar @ Golu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30270 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-399 Year-2023 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Aditya Kumar @ Golu Son of Shashi Kumar Resident of Village- Basua, Police Station- Aurahi, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Smiti Bharti, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 24-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Laheriasarai P.S Case No. 399 of 2023 from the Court of learned C.J.M registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 411, 413, 414, 420, 421, 424, 467, 468, 472/34 of the I.P.C and 25(1-b)a, 26/35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that petitioner and the co-acused are habitual of withdrawing the others money from ATM machine with tricks or on pretext of helping. Pistol, motorcycle, and lot of ATM cards of different banks recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is next

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30270 of 2024(2) dt.24-04-2024 2/2 submitted that chargesheet already been submitted. It is also submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.08.2023 and petitioner has got ten criminal antecedents as stated in para 3 of the petition.

5. However, learned APP for the State oppose the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. In view of the allegation, FIR, impugned order it appears that petitioner is a habitual offender and there are similar nature of criminal offences against the petitioner, moreover, informant has also supported the version of the prosecution, so considering the all aspects and seriousness of the case this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if the trial is not concluded the petitioners may renew his prayer for bail before the trial court and trial court shall grant bail to the petitioner. (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T