Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42162/2024dismissed

Sudhanshu Kumar @ Sudhanshu Anand v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-19Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42162 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-286 Year-2023 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka ====================================================== Sudhanshu Kumar @ Sudhanshu Anand Son Of Sanjay Kumar VillageSakahra P.S.- Rajoun, Distt.- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt for bail of the petitioner as earlier such prayer was rejected by order dated 19.10.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 68473 of 2023.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rajoun (Nawada) P.S. Case No. 286 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 392/411 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The following order was passed on 19.10.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 68473 of 2023 which reads as under: " Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rajoun (Nawada) P.S. Case No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42162 of 2024(2) dt.19-07-2024 2/2 286 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other criminals have committed a loot of mobile phone, laptop etc. from the informant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.

6. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioner by contending that the petitioner has been named in the FIR and mobile phone and laptop has been recovered from his possession. He further submits that the petitioner has criminal antecedents also.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances, as mentioned above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

9. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner."

5. This Court finds no new ground to review its earlier order dated 19.10.2023.

6. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed again.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T