Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29293/2025dismissed

Sushant Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-25Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29293 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2024 Thana- SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR DistrictSaharsa ====================================================== Sushant Kumar S/o Om Yadav @ Om Kumar R/o Indarawa, P.S.- Saur Bazar, Distt.- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-07-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 75112 of 2024.

3. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code, later on Section 411 of the I.P.C. was added.

4. The following order was passed on 23.10.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 75112 of 2024 :- Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 38 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Unknown criminals looted laptop,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29293 of 2025(4) dt.25-07-2025 2/2 mobile phone hard disk, pen drive some cash from the informant. During investigation, one co-accused Krish Kumar was arrested who has given self inculpatory statement in which the petitioner is named. The looted mobile is also recovered from the accused Krish Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. Petitioner is in custody since 21.06.2024. Petitioner has four criminal antecedents and in three cases he is on bail.

5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the materials against the petitioner and the criminal antecedent of serious nature, this application is dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is dismissed.

8. If the trial is delayed, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the trial two witnesses have been examined and the petitioner may be granted bail.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been found involved in a loot, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.

7. The court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) anand/- U T