Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49517/2022bail rejected

Golu Kumat v. The State Of Bihar

2022-12-14Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49517 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2022 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Golu Kumat Son of Badri Kamat, R/O Village- Sihaul, Ward No.-6, P.S.- Bihra, District- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-12-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 335 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 414 IPC and 25 (1-B) (a), 26 Arms Act.

The prosecution case is that during course of vehicle checking the petitioner tried to flee from car and from his possession one loaded country made Katta containing one live cartridge was recovered.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49517 of 2022(2) dt.14-12-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who is in custody since 04.05.2022 has falsely been implicated by the police in many cases and in all other cases the petitioner is on bail. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. He has submitted that petitioner is a habitual criminal who is involved in as many as 13 cases of henious crime including dacoity, murder, offence under Arms Act etc. which is evident from paragraph 3 of the petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and criminal antecedent of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer is rejected. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) ashutosh/- U T