Patna High CourtCR. MISC./78446/2024bail rejected

Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-11-13Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78446 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2021 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Yadav Son of Kailash Yadav @ Faisan Yadav Resident of Village - Lattra, P.S. - Gopalpur, District - Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjan Kumar Jha,Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 13-11-2024 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 41 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 29.01.2021 by the informant, Chhotu Kumar Sharma.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that he started on a truck loaded with red sand and when it reached near Dharara graveyard, a motorcycle took over, parked the bike in front of it, dragged the driver outside, snatched the amount from his jacket and threatened of dire consequences. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. The investigation took place in the matter and subsequently, role of the petitioner came and that way he is in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78446 of 2024(2) dt.13-11-2024 2/2 judicial custody.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession and no TIP conducted.

6. Learned APP, on the other hand, opposes the prayer submitting that during investigation, his name has come and a bare perusal of paragraph-3 would show that he has almost one dozen criminal cases under his belt under different sections including 395, 302 as also 307 of the IPC.

7. Considering the submissions put forward by the parties as also having gone through his criminal antecedents, and the allegation that has come, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) perwez U T