Bablu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42565 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2020 Thana- SILAO District- Nalanda ====================================================== Bablu Kumar S/o Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Kewat R/o village- Malbigha, P.S.- Chandi, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 06-12-2022 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.
The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Silao P.S. Case No. 204 of 2020 lodged under Sections 341, 324, 326, 394, 307, 411/ 34 of the I.P.C.
As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against 3 unknown persons in which allegation of robbery with attacking on the informant's brother by cutting vein of his neck is there in the F.I.R. Initially, this case was filed only under the provisions of dacoity, etc. but subsequently, Section 307 has been added.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42565 of 2022(2) dt.06-12-2022 2/2 submits that the F.I.R. has been filed against unknown. He also submits that the occurrence took place admittedly on 16.12.2020 but the present F.I.R. has been filed on 23.12.2020 that is delay of about 7 days but reason has not been explained. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2022 and charge sheet has already been filed in this case. Counsel submits that there are 3 criminal cases pending against the petitioner in which he is on bail. Counsel submits that the petitioner was not put on T.I.P. Nothing was recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are 3 criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
Upon specific query that whether charge has been framed or not, learned counsel submits that as per his knowledge charge has not been framed in this case. 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 liberty is hereby granted to renew his prayer for bail only after framing of charge and Trial Court is directed to release him on bail thereafter, imposing its own conditions so that he may not evade his appearance during trial. With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/- U T