← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26187/2025dismissed

Golu Kumar @ Rahul @ Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-05-13Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26187 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2025 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Golu Kumar @ Rahul @ Rahul Kumar Son of Arbind Kumar Resident of Village - Ibrahim Nagar, P.S.- Ara Town, District - Bhojpur (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ritu Raj Shukla, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ahmad Ali, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Nawada P.S. Case No. 24 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and later on Sections 310(2) and 111(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were added.

3. As per allegation, the petitioner and other coaccused persons looted 630 gms. gold ornaments, a golden ring and Rs. 8,000/- from the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26187 of 2025(3) dt.13-05-2025 2/2 petitioner has transpired in confessional statement of coaccused, Amit Kumar, who has been granted bail. He is under custody since 17.01.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances specially the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.

7. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months from today.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Neha/- U T