Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINALAPPEAL (SJ) No.3469 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2021 Thana- KOTWA District- East Champaran ====================================================== RAUSHAN KUMAR @ RAUSHAN YADAV SON OF LAKSHAMAN RAY @ LAKSHAMAN YADAV R/O VILLAGE- DIPAU, P.S.- KOTWA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN, THROUGH HIS FATHER/GUARDIANLAKSHAMAN RAY @ LAKSHAMAN YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- DIPAU, P.S.- KOTWA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Abhishek Kumar For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Abhay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. The appellant has earlier preferred the Cr. Appeal for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Champaran at Motihari in Children Trial No. 14 of 2021 arising out of Kotwa P.S. Case No. 92 of 2021, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4936 of 2021.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the fresh ground on which the appellant has renewed his prayer for bail is that in the instant case, the charge has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3469 of 2022(4) dt.16-11-2022 2/2 framed on 05.08.2022, as contained in Annexure-4 to the memo of appeal. He further submits that the appellant is in custody since 28.04.2021.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant by contending that there is no fresh ground in the present case to enlarge the appellant on bail. Further he contended that earlier no liberty was given to the appellant to renew his prayer for bail on framing of charge. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, this Court does not find any fresh ground for reconsideration of the prayer for bail of the appellant. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected.
shailendra/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T