Patna High CourtCR. MISC./52280/2024dismissed

Subodh Kumar Rai @ Subodh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-02Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52280 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2022 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Subodh Kumar Rai @ Subodh Kumar Son of Satyendra Yadav R/O Vill.- Pakaha, P.S.- Baitkunthpur, Dist.- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-08-2024 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 18.10.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 68237 of 2023.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kesariya P.S. Case No. 132 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. The following order was passed on 18.10.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 68237 of 2023 which reads as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kesariya P.S. Case No. 132 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52280 of 2024(2) dt.02-08-2024 2/2 Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the persecution case, three unknown criminals looted the motorcycle and ornament of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail since 18.05.2023.

5. Materials have come during investigation to connect the petitioner with the crime. The petitioner is accused in nine more cases.

6. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

7. Considering the antecedent and the period of custody, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

9. The District Judge, Gopalganj and the District Judge, East Champaran are directed to get the trial of all cases registered against the petitioner concluded at the earliest.

10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the District Judge, Gopalganj and District Judge, East Champaran for its compliance through FAX or e-mail forthwith."

5. This Court finds no ground to review its earlier order dated 18.10.2023.

6. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T