Dhanraj Kumar @Dhanu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38168 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2022 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria ====================================================== Dhanraj Kumar @ Dhanu Son of Ramshankar Singh, R/o- Vill.- Khamhar, P.S.- Begusarai Muffasil, Dist.- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arjun Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 30-09-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Khagaria P.S. Case No. 207 of 2022 (G.R. No.622 of 2022), lodged under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, the allegation of dacoity against 6 unknown persons is there in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., rather his name has figured in this case by virtue of confession. He further submits that nothing incriminating recovered from the possession of petitioner, nor he was put on T.I.P. He further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38168 of 2022(2) dt.30-09-2022 2/2 submits that petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2022, charge sheet has already been filed in this case and there are 2 criminal cases pending against him, in which he is on bail in one case and in another case he is persuading for bail. Upon specific query that whether charge has been framed or not, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to answer this question. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present, therefore, his bail application is hereby rejected.

But the petitioner is at liberty to seek for regular bail after framing of charge in this case.

The Trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail after framing of charge imposing its own conditions, so that he may not evade his appearance during trial. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) ritik/- U T