Niraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37735 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2022 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Niraj Kumar Son of Late Sheonath Sah Resident of Village - Bariyariya, P.S.- Sangrampur, District - East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jagdher Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 23-09-2022 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 Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 155 of 2022 lodged under Sections 406, 420, 413, 414, 34 of the I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, the Police party has arrested persons from Sujuki car upon information provided by the villagers. There were 3 persons apprehended including the present petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said car from which he was arrested, is his purchased car from one Chandan Kumar who sworn affidavit that he sold the said car to Niraj Kumar.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37735 of 2022(2) dt.23-09-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is in custody since 13.04.2022, charge sheet has already been filed in this case. Upon specific query of the Court as to why the said currency in which blank papers are there only in the uppermost and lowermost parts have hundred rupees currency. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not clear from whose possession it has been recovered. On the point of criminal antecedent, he submits that petitioner is on bail in the said case and ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner's antecedent is not clean and in a similar types of cases he is accused.

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 but he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge and the Trial Court upon imposing condition that he shall appear and support in trial then release him on bail.

With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) prakashmani/- U T