Patna High CourtCR. MISC./73098/2024dismissed

Chandra Bhushan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-01-21Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73098 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-323 Year-2024 Thana- PANCHRUKHI District- Siwan ====================================================== Chandra Bhushan Singh Son of Jitendra Singh R/O-Village- Chhitanpur, P.S.- Asaon, District- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under section 317 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the police was indulge in checking the vehicle in the meanwhile, the truck which was being driven by this petitioner was intercepted. He tried to flee away. He was apprehended and he was not disclosing anything regarding his identification and the ownership of the truck. Only he was identified as Chandra Bhushan Singh.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73098 of 2024(5) dt.21-01-2025 2/2 falsely been implicated in this case. From case diary, it also transpires that the said truck belongs to one Mithilesh Kumar resident of Tata road, Ranchi at Jharkhand. The owner of the truck has also disclosed that his truck was being stolen on 11.07.2024 from Namkom Police Station regarding which FIR has been filed. It is further submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 19.07.2024.

5. Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submits that from perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of 10 cases.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as custody of the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

8. However the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T