Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36491/2024rejected

Rakesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-20Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36491 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-372 Year-2023 Thana- MITHANPURA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar, Aged about 24 years, Male, Son Of Surendra Poddar Resident Of Mohalla - Mithanpura Das Colony, P.S. - Mithanpura, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nachiketa Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 20-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 372 of 2023 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 461, 379, 411, 413, 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, mobile phones and other accessories were stolen from the shop of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He has falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. The petitioner was not apprehended on the spot. He is in judicial custody since 30.08.2023.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36491 of 2024(2) dt.20-05-2024 2/2

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. From perusal of the F.I.R., seizure list and impugned order dated 15.03.2024, it appears that on the basis of written report of the informant F.I.R. registered against unknown persons. During investigation, 25 stolen articles including several mobiles, laptop and one gold earring have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. There is no any explanation on behalf of the petitioner for recovery of the stolen articles. Petitioner has also two criminal antecedents of similar nature of the offence.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

9. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of the order and if not concluded, learned trial Court shall grant bail to this petitioner.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) lata/- U T