Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81943 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Chandan kumar Son of Ram Narayan sah @ Ramnarayan Sah Resident of Village - Siswa Ajgari, P.S. - Banjariya, District - East Champaran(Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 03-12-2025 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, learned APP representing the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Motihari Muffasil P.S. Case No. 283 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, lodged on 09.05.2025 by the informant Munna Kumar.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while he was moving on motorcycle with Rs. 22 Lakhs to buy jewellery but on the way, three accused persons intercepted and looted the bag. This led to the F.I.R.

4. Subsequently, as the story unfolds, during the investigation one Santosh Kumar was taken into custody which

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81943 of 2025(2) dt.03-12-2025 2/2 led to the implication of this petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge order records that they were in conversation with each other and direction was given to keep the mobile switched off at the time of occurrence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has remained in custody since07.06.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

6. On the other hand, learned APP representing the State opposes the prayer submitting that a robbery of Rs. 22 Lakhs took place and the learned Sessions Judge order shows that he was an active accomplice in this.

7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties as also the materials on record, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T