Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8973/2025dismissed

Amar Jeet Chaudhary @ Munsi v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-19Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8973 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2022 Thana- BIKRAMGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== Amar Jeet Chaudhary @ Munsi Son of Ram Ayodhya Chaudhary Resident of Village - Katharai, P.S.- Charpokhari, District - Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. A counter affidavit filed by Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned APP for the State is taken on record.

3. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 235 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 79919 of 2023, which reads as under:

"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State; Shri Jharkhandi Upadhyay.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in the present case registered for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, in a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8973 of 2025(5) dt.19-09-2025 2/2 broad day light, six criminals entered the office of the Bharat Finance and looted Rs.

6,19,971/-, laptop etc.

4. Sufficient material has come during investigation to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Petitioner is accused in nine more cases which includes cases of dacoity and murder.

5. Considering the criminal antecedent and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. This application for regular bail is dismissed.

6. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial of all the cases pending against the petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest.

7. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas and District Judge, Rohtas is directed to take all steps to expedite the trials of the petitioner.

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas and District Judge, Rohtas through FAX for its compliance forthwith."

5. Learned APP for the State submits that most of the witnesses have been examined.

6. Considering the fact that the trial is on the verge of conclusion, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T