Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2962/2024bail rejected

Saheb Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-31Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2962 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-265 Year-2023 Thana- BELDOUR District- Khagaria ====================================================== Saheb Yadav S/O Late Mushahan Yadav R/O Village- Pin Nagra, P.SBeldour, Distt.- Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 31-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Beldour P.S. Case No. 265 of 2023 (G.R. No. 3326 of 2023) lodged under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 384, 386, 347, 379 and 34 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against five named and two unknown accused persons against whom allegation of stopping the vehicle of the informant and snatching of silver bracelet and Rs.12,000/- cash is there.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the alleged recovery of bracelet has been made from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2962 of 2024(2) dt.31-01-2024 2/2 possession of one Raja Kumar (other accused).

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 27.09.2023 having clean antecedent.

6. Counsel also submits that the other co-accused, namely, Ranjeet Kumar has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 71/2024.

7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the case of co-accused Ranjeet Kumar is not like that of present petitioner and there is subsistence in the argument of the petitioner.

8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T