Patna High CourtCR. MISC./85430/2023bail rejected

Prabhat Kumar @ Golu v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-16Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85430 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2021 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Prabhat Kumar @ Golu Son Of Pappu Kumar Singh R/O Village- Simari, P.S.- Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 16-02-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with S.Tr. no. 78 of 2023 arising out of Samastipur (Muffasil) P.S. Case no. 191 of 2021 registered under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, three accused persons committed bank robbery and took away Rs. 1,80,000/- with them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 12.1.2023 (Annexure-P1) passed in Cr. Misc. no. 27909 of 2022 giving liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months or after framing of charge, whichever is later.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85430 of 2023(4) dt.16-02-2024 2/2 The petitioner is in custody since 19.1.2022.

5. Report was called for from the learned trial. As per the report received contained in letter dated 11.1.2024, charge has not been framed as yet.

6. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R, together with the contents of the earlier order of rejection dated 12.1.2023, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

8. The petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail as per the observation made in the order dated 12.1.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 27909 of 2022.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Harsh/- U T