Ramesh Bidrohi @ Aditya Jee @ Dinesh Jee @ Aditya @ Dinesh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53710 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2016 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR RAIL P.S. DistrictSaran ====================================================== RAMESH BIDROHI @ ADITYA JEE @ DINESH JEE @ ADITYA @ DINESH SON OF KRISHNA PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - MAHARAJGANJ, POLICE STATION - MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT - SIWAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mili Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 31-08-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State Shri Jharkhandi Upadhyay.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail as earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 19.05.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25806 of 2023 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Muzaffarpur Rail P.S. Case No. 20 of 2016 registered for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 435, 427, 341, 342, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 15, 17, 20 of the U.A.P.A. Act.

The petitioner has been accused in ten cases from before.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53710 of 2024(2) dt.31-08-2024 2/2 Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

The Court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner.

3. Upon perusal of the earlier order and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds no new ground for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U T