Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29572/2024dismissed

Kapil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-06-21Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29572 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2021 Thana- KADIRGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Kapil Yadav son of Munsi Yadav Village- Pakhanpur Dewra Ps- Ghoshi Kari OP Dist- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shantanu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of bail. Earlier his application was rejected vide order dated 02.08.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47797 of 2023.

3. The following order was passed on 02.08.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 47797 of 2023:- "Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.Tr. No. 550 of 2023 arising out of Kadirganj P.S. Case No. 34 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 395 of the Indian Penal Code and later Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner has participated in the commission of Dacoiti.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29572 of 2024(2) dt.21-06-2024 2/2

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in this case.

6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the petitioner has four antecedents of similar nature.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances, as mentioned above, and also considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

9. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial."

4. No ground for review of my earlier order is made out.

5. In view of the above, this application is dismissed.

6. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Saif/- U T