Patna High CourtCR. MISC./78855/2019bail rejected

Kundan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-09-16Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78855 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2018 Thana- GAMAHARIYA District- Madhepura ====================================================== KUNDAN KUMAR Son of Shyam Sharma @ Wakil Sharma Resident of Village- Chikni Kharh, P.S.- Gamhariya, District- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 16-09-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through video conferecing.

Petitioner is in jail custody since 9.10.2018 in connection with S.T. No. 30/19 (arising out of Gaahariaya P.S. Case No. 124/2018) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 354, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

Earlier, the bail petition of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.3.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1559/2019 giving liberty to him to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

However, the perusal of order dated 28.3.2019 passed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78855 of 2019(3) dt.16-09-2020 2/2 in Cr. Misc. No. 1559/2019 goes to show that the above stated liberty was given to petitioner taking note of this fact that petitioner had no criminal antecedents but present petition reflects that petitioner does have criminal antecedent of two cases. Therefore, it is an obvious that the observation given in Cr. Misc. No. 1559/2019 was based on account of placing wrong facts before the Court, therefore, in my view, the observation given in Cr. Misc. No. 1559/2019 is worthless. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, again, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and, accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail on completion of three years in custody, if his trial is not concluded within the above stated period.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) Spd/- U T