Channu Kumar @ Chunu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58539 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2023 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Channu Kumar @ Chunu Kumar son of Chalitter Mandal @ Chritra Mandal Resident of Mahesleta Ps- Kiul Dist- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shailesh Anand For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Uday Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. In compliance of the order dated 4.9.2024, the Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai has filed his show cause which is taken on record. In the show cause, the Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai has said that Court before which the case is pending is vacant.
3. In view of the above, the District Judge, Lakhisarai is directed to transfer the case to a Court where the trial Magistrate/trial Judge is available and after transferring of the case, the police will get the witnesses examined in the Court below.
4. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Lakhisarai Cyber P.S. Case No. 11 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 419, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66D of the Information and Technologies Act.
5. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58539 of 2024(3) dt.24-01-2025 2/2 said to have been involved in paper leak of an competitive examination.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, who has joined this Court virtually that his client is innocent but he is not able to explain as to why an answer sheet was found with the petitioner and what was he doing in the vicinity of a examination center sitting in a Scorpio vehicle with other co-accused.
7. So far as other accused persons are concerned, most of the accused persons have been granted bail after rejection of the bail order of this petitioner by this Court and it appears that the order of this Court through which the bail application of the petitioner was rejected was not produced before the Hon'ble Judges of this Court who have granted bail to the other co-accused persons.
8. Considering the facts of the case and the nature of allegation levelled against him, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U