Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40631/2025rejected

Sandhir Kumar @ Sudhir v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-20Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40631 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2025 Thana- KOPA District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

Sandhir Kumar @ Sudhir, aged about 20 years, Gender-Male, S/O Late Sunil Manjhi, R/O Village- Chainpur, P.S- Kopa, Distt.- Saran. 2.

Sunny Kumar @ Sunny Kumar Manjhi @ Sunnu Kumar, aged about 21 years, S/O Dhanpat Manjhi R/O Village- Chainpur, P.S- Kopa, Distt.- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 20-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are in custody in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 309(6) of the BNS, 2023.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, it is a case of assaulting to the informant and took away his mobile phone.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that petitioners are not named in the FIR and there is no specific allegation of assault upon the informant or loot of the alleged mobile and nothing has been recovered from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40631 of 2025(3) dt.20-08-2025 2/2 conscious possession of the petitioners. Petitioners have got clean antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition and they are in custody since 19.04.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

6. On perusal of the first information report and impugned order dated 14.05.2025, it appears that looted mobile was recovered from petitioner no.2 and this case is of highway robbery in the night by unknown miscreants and during course of investigation, it appears that petitioners and two other miscreants were seen near the place of occurrence and they confessed their guilt and modus oprendi for committing robbery, so considering all aspects of the material, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

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

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T