Bimlesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82739 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2023 Thana- KALER District- Jehanabad ====================================================== BIMLESH KUMAR Son of Chaman Rajvanshi R/o vill - Arai, PS. -Daudnagar, Distt. - Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Avinash Raj, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 07-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Kaler P.S. Case No.84 of 2023 lodged under Sections 394 and 307 of the I.P.C. read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown accused persons with allegation of robbery against the unknown accused persons who have also fired upon the informant during the loot, due to which he injured.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the case has been filed against unknown criminals and petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.. He submits that the name of petitioner has figured in this case only due to the reason that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82739 of 2023(3) dt.07-03-2024 2/2 the looted mobile has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

5. Counsel further submits that SIM card was in the name of petitioner's mother and the mobile was purchased by the petitioner's father.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 24.07.2023 having clean antecedent and charge-sheet has already been filed in this case.

7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that case diary has been called for in which it has been disclosed by the petitioner that the name of other accused persons involvement are there in the present case and the looted mobile has been found in the possession of the petitioner.

8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected, but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail 9 months after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T