← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26961/2018dismissed

Sujeet Kumar @ Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2018-05-07Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26961 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2018 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Sujeet Kumar @ Amit Kumar, son of Chandrika Yadav, Resident of Village Kachhiyawan, Police Station - Nagarnausa, District - Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-05-2018 Heard Sri Bibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, who is in custody since 16.01.2018 in Hilsa P.S. Case No.28/2018 registered for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a/26 of the Arms Act, has prayed for grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially F.I.R. was lodged under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-b)a/26 of the Arms Act on accusation that the petitioner was having stolen motorcycle and he was also having loaded country made pistol. He submits that subsequently since the motorcycle was found in the name of the petitioner , chargesheet was submitted only under the Arms Act

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26961 of 2018(2) dt.07-05-2018 2/2 and no chargesheet has been submitted under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

However, on perusal of paragraph-3 of the petition, it is evident that besides the present case, the petitioner is also accused in four cases. Considering the nature of accusation, period of custody as well as criminal antecedent of the petitioner, at the moment I am not inclined to grant bail. The prayer for bail stands rejected.

If the case is not concluded within six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) nawalkrs/- U T