Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36075/2024dismissed

Chhotu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-12Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36075 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2022 Thana- FALKA District- Katihar ====================================================== Chhotu Yadav SON OF FATTO YADAV @ PITAMBER YADAV VILLAGEJarlahi,P.S.- BARARI, DIST- KATIHAR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Narayan Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Veena Kumari Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-07-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. The prayer of the petitioner has been rejected twice earlier by this court.

3. The following order was passed on 30.08.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 56139 of 2023 :- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Falka (Pothia) P.S. Case No.104 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Six criminals looted one motorcycle, helmet and one mobile phone from the informant. During investigation, the materials have come to connect the petitioner with the crime.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some of the co-accused have been granted.

5. Considering the fact that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36075 of 2024(2) dt.12-07-2024 2/2 petitioner along with his gang is involved in committing dacoity on the National Highway and also considering the fact that he is accused in three more serious criminal cases, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected."

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant has not examined the petitioner.

5. Since the trial is proceeding and the prayer of the bail has been rejected twice earlier by this court, I see no reason to review my earlier orders.

6. Accordingly, this application is hereby rejected again.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T