Raunak Kumar @ Raunak Rai @ Raunak Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56348 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2024 Thana- SIKARHATTA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Raunak Kumar @ Raunak Rai @ Raunak Ray, Male, age 20 years, Son of Narendra Kumar Ray @ Nagendra Ray, Resident of Village and Post - Bagar, P.S. - Sikarhatta, District - Bhojpur, Bihar - 802222. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Piyush Saurav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sikarhatta P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, it is a case of snatching one mobile along with some cash at the gun point of the informant by the accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR rather his name has appeared in course of investigation. He next submits that the name of the petitioner has been surfaced from his self confessional statement.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56348 of 2024(2) dt.19-08-2024 2/2 Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition is in custody since 12.05.2024.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.

6. From perusal of the FIR, seizure list and impugned order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-X, Bhojpur at Ara dated 10.07.2024, it appears that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired in this case during the course of investigation. From perusal of the records, it also appears that petitioner is the purchaser of the stolen mobile as stated in the impugned order but the recovery of stolen mobile after about three months of the alleged occurrence, accordingly the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. Let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Sikarhatta P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024. (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Anand Kr.

U T