Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69885 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2024 Thana- RAHUI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Amit Kumar, S/O Dilip Mahto, R/O Village- Pahsara, P.S.- Navakothi (Navkothi), District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-10-2025 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Ajeet Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Rahui P.S. Case No. 85 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 136 of the Electricity Act and Sections 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.02.2024 the informant received an information from the villagers that three phase four wire AB cable in Nadi Khanda of Bhenda has been stolen. When the informant went there he found wire of Sosandi Khanda and Nadi Khanda stolen by putting off the AB switch causing loss of Rs. Three lakhs to SBPDCL.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69885 of 2025(2) dt.08-10-2025 2/2 been falsely implicated in the present case. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown miscreants. During course of investigation, one night guard Binod Kumar was apprehended and he has disclosed the name of this petitioner and others. It has also been submitted that nothing has been recovered from possession of this petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the possession of Binod Kumar. He is in judicial custody since 12.08.2025.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and has submitted that petitioner is having criminal antecedent of eight cases.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. However, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge in the trial Court itself. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T