Shubham Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80682 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2024 Thana- IMADPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Shubham Kumar Son of Arvind Kumar Sah @ Arvind sah Resident of village -Pawana, PS- Pawana, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raju Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-02-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with the Imadpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita lodged on 05.08.2024 by the informant, Shyamuddin Ansari.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that he runs C.S.P. of the Bank of India and on the fateful day, the accused came to the counter and after threatening with the gun, took away Rs. 2,40,000/- on motorcycle. This led to the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his role is limited to the allegation that the weapon was provided by him for which payments were made and he has already
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80682 of 2024(3) dt.11-02-2025 2/2 remained in custody since 12.08.2024.
5. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh on the other hand has taken this Court to the learned Sessions Judge order to show that not only he supplied the weapon to the accused persons but there is also recovery of money from him. He further submits that the informant has identified the co-accused in T.I. parade and post confession, the name of the petitioner has come up.
6. Considering the allegation in the FIR coupled with the fact that he has played an important role of supplying the weapon to the accused persons which became the reason for the looting, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail
7. The present bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T