CR. MISC./34802/2022 of SUMIT KUMAR @ AMIT KUMAR Vs The State of Bihar on 24 December 2022

2

24-12-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 51036 of 2022

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2021 Thana- KUMAR KHAND District- Madhepura ======================================================

Ravikant Kumar @ Raja S/O Ratnesh Kumar Yadav Resident of village-Shivnagar Parariya, Ward No- 3, P.S.- Kumarkhand, District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

with

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34802 of 2022

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2021 Thana- KUMAR KHAND District- Madhepura======================================================Sumit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Son Of Sri Pramod Yadav R/O Village-Shivnagar, Jamuwaha, Ward No.-4, P.S.- Kumarkhand, District- Madhepura

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMANORAL ORDER

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learnedA.P.Ps. for the State.

The petitioners seek regular bail in connection withKumarkhand P.S. Case No. 331 of 2021 lodged under Sections 392/34 of the I.P.C. and subsequently Sections 395/412 was alsoadded.

As per the prosecution case, the allegation of robberyof Rs. 6,14,963/- has been made from the North Bihar GraminBank, Rauta Branch as well as the allegation of snatching themobile of the Branch Manager who is the informant of the caseis there.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that thepetitioners are not named in the F.I.R. Counsel submits that theirnames have figured in this case by virtue of the confessionalstatement made by Gautam Kumar and Randhir Kumar fromwhose possession, the part of the alleged looted money werealso recovered alongwith the mobile set. Counsel for petitionerssubmit that there are 3 criminal cases pending against thepetitioners and in all the cases they are on bail. Counsel submitsthat petitioners are in custody since 16.02.2022 and charge sheethas already been filed in this case. Counsel further submits thatthe other co-accused person, namely, Gautam Kumar has beengranted bail by the District Court itself, whereas the other co-accused person, namely, Randhir Kumar has been granted bailby the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated21.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 13204 of 2022.

sadique/-

UT

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer forbail and submits that there are 4 unknown accused personsagainst whom the case has been filed. Two were granted bailand two are present before the Court. Counsel submits thatpetitioners may be granted bail only after framing of chargewith a view to secure the trial.

In the present facts and circumstances of these casesand the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bailto the petitioners at present but liberty is hereby granted thatthey may renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge andthe Trial Court is directed to release them on bail imposing itsown conditions so that they may not evade their appearanceduring trial.

With this observation, the bail application standsrejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.)