Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60477 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-765 Year-2020 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Kumar Sharma S/O Mohan Sharma R/O VillagePatori, Ward No. 04, P.S- Bihra, Distt.- Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kr. Mishra, Advocate :

Ms. Pratibha Srivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code, later on Section 411 of the I.P.C. was added.

3. The allegation in short is that the informant was intercepted by three unknown miscreants who snatched the Motorcycle, Rs.9,500/- cash, Mobile phone etc.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the First Information Report has been lodged against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired during the course of investigation in the confessional statement of one Roshan Kumar. As a matter of fact, nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, but till date the petitioner has not been put on T.I. parade. It has also been pointed out that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60477 of 2025(5) dt.16-02-2026 2/2 the co-accused Roshan Kumar, upon whose confessional statement the name of the petitioner has transpired, has already been granted the privilege of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Annexure-P/2). The petitioner is in custody since 28.02.2025 and charges have been framed in the case and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of bail on the basis of allegations made in the First Information Report.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the petitioner has substantially remained in custody with the charges having been framed and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future, coupled with the fact that the similarly situated coaccused has already been granted the privilege of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Supaul /concerned Court below in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 765 of 2020. (Soni Shrivastava, J) anand/- U T