Sonu Kumar @ Akash Verma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38231 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-667 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA KOTWALI District- Gaya ====================================================== Sonu Kumar @ Akash Verma Son of Late Bhola Saw @ Surma Saw R/O - Harnout, P.S.- Harnout, Dist.- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nityanand Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 23-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence under Section 392/414 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, the informant along with her uncle were returning from Jain Temple and they reached at Munna General Store, two persons came from motorcycle and snatched golden and try to flee away but out of two persons was apprehended by police and disclosed his name as the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and no incriminating article has been recovered from

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38231 of 2024(2) dt.23-05-2024 2/2 the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 29.11.2023.

5.

Learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. On perusal of the first information and impugned order dated 16.03.2024, it appears that petitioner was arrested at the spot and after investigation, the police has submitted chargesheet under Sections 392 and 414 of the IPC and petitioner having two criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition, considering which, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order and if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the trial court and the trial court shall grant bail to the petitioner. (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T