Patna High CourtCR. MISC./84522/2024dismissed

Raushan Kumar Singh @ Gamgam Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-03-18Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84522 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2019 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Raushan Kumar Singh @ Gamgam Singh Son of Late Ravindra Kumar Singh Resident of Village - Phuladh, P.S. - Paroo, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-03-2025 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 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant was going to Kataru of his friend's house. As she reached near Paroo Gandak Canal, three miscreants on a bike surrounded him and assaulted him by means of 'knife' and snatched his bag and cash.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged against unknown miscreants. As the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84522 of 2024(3) dt.18-03-2025 2/2 petitioner is having criminal antecedent, he was apprehended. It is further submitted that nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession and the petitioner has not been put on Test Identification Parade (TIP). Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 26.07.2024.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail stating from perusal of the FIR that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of 21 cases and as such, he does not deserve bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions put forward by the parties, I am not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected.

7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if so advised. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Jagdish/- U T