Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29180/2025bail rejected

Sunil Kumar @ Nepali v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-06Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29180 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2019 Thana- KOPA District- Saran ====================================================== Sunil Kumar @ Nepali Son of Dineshwar Singh R/o village - Ami, P.S.- Dighwara, Dist.- Saran at Chapra.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar Alok For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kopa Case No.104/2019, registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of three cases and is in custody since 08.03.2025 and the informant alleges that she was intercepted by 2-3 unknown accused, who looted her articles as recorded in the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the instant case during the course of investigation, based on confessional statement of apprehended accused. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29180 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/2 next submitted that since the petitioner has antecedent of three cases, as such he came to be implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 08.03.2025 but then has not been put on T.I.P.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the case is of the year 2019 and the petitioner for six years was absconding as he was arrested on 08.03.2025. It is next submitted that in the event if privilege of bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

7. The regular bail application of the petitioner is rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T