Patna High CourtCR. MISC./47454/2024dismissed

Mithlesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-18Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47454 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-817 Year-2023 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== Mithlesh Kumar S/o Yogendra Yadav R/o vill - Madarkurawa, P.S. - Banka, Distt. - Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Brij Nandan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, some unknown persons have stolen the informant's motorcycle as well as his tenants's motorcycles.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and he is languishing in judicial custody since 03.01.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47454 of 2024(2) dt.18-07-2024 2/2 application for bail and submitted that during course of investigation, the name of the petitioner has figured in this case. He submitted that one of the alleged motorcycles which is said to have stolen, has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, which has come vide para-18 of the case diary. He further submitted that petitioner having two criminal antecedents. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within one year from the date of custody, failing which petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Arish/- U T