Patna High CourtCR. MISC./87227/2024bail granted

Baidyanath Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2025-03-20Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87227 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2024 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Baidyanath Prasad S/o Late Dangar Prasad R/o vill - Bahuarabhan, P.S. - Madhuban, Distt.- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pronoti Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 20-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No. 163 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(5) of the B.N.S.

3. As per prosecution case, the petitioner was arrested by the police with the stolen motorcycle. It is also alleged that on the disclosures made by the petitioner, the stolen motorcycles have been recovered from his scrap (Kabad) shop.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to village politics. He further submits that the seized motorcycle does not belong to the petitioner. He further submits that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87227 of 2024(3) dt.20-03-2025 2/2 conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has never indulged in sell and purchase of the stolen motorcycle. There is a non-compliance of Section 103 of the B.N.S.S. which creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 11.08.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Having heard rival contention of both the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also taking into account the period of custody of the petitioner, let the petitioner, abovenamed, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No. 163 of 2024.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) rishi/- U T