Durgesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62523 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2025 Thana- MOHIUDDIN NAGAR DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Durgesh Kumar S/O Sunil Chaudhary Resident of Village- Bhadiya, P.SMohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shantanu Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the Bharaitya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that unknown miscreants entered in the CSP center of the informant and from there they took Rupees Two Lakh and passbook along with cheque book of Central Bank of India.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants. The name of this petitioner has surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of Gaurav Kumar and this petitioner has also made his confessional statement. From perusal of the case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62523 of 2025(4) dt.27-11-2025 2/2 diary it also transpire that from the bag of this petitioner, the passbook of Central Bank of India which is detailed in the FIR was recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is suffering from mental disease.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the bail and has submitted that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of four cases of similar nature and one of the stolen articles has been recovered from his possession.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, he may renew his prayer for bail after completing the custody of one year.
7. Accordingly, this bail application stands rejected. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) durgesh/- U T