Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39786/2024dismissed

Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Sharma @ Suraj Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2025-02-21Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39786 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2018 Thana- KISHANPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Sharma @ Suraj Kumar Sharma S/O Butan Sharma RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BATRAHA, POLICE STATION - SAHARSA, DIST- SAHARSA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun .

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Sahni ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of bail. Earlier his application was rejected vide order dated 18.10.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 68252 of 2023 which is as follows:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2023 in connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 208/2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have committed theft of Dell laptop, mobile phone, cash and gold ornaments.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39786 of 2024(4) dt.21-02-2025 2/2 submits that the name of the petitioner transpired during the course of investigation. He next submits that petitioner is not involved in the commission of theft rather he has been made accused on the basis of his criminal antecedents.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner had been using the mobile phone which is the subject matter of the theft and also the petitioner is accused in nine more cases, this application for grant of bail is dismissed for the present."

3. In the trial, six witnesses have already been examined.

4. Considering the same, I am not inclined to review my earlier order. This application is dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Saif/- U T