Dismissed

Sonu Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC12 Apr 2022CR. MISC./3991/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three bail applications filed by accused persons challenging charges under IPC Sections 392 and 392 related to robbery. Rejecting the prayers for regular bail, the Court held that the petitioners are habitual offenders with numerous criminal antecedents and thus not inclined to grant relief.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioners is rejected.

Sonu Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39437 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-810 Year-2020 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

====================================================== AVINANDAN SAHNI @ KALLU S/o Shambhu Sahni R/o VillageChakbago, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar

¶7

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

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

¶9

with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 56190 of 2021

¶10

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-810 Year-2020 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur

¶11

====================================================== SUJEET KUMAR @ SANJIT KUMAR Son of Rajeshwar Ram Resident of Village - Lakhnauri, P.s.- Deoriya, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

¶12

... ... Petitioner/s

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶15

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶16

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

¶17

with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3991 of 2022

¶18

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-810 Year-2020 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur

¶19

====================================================== SONU KUMAR SON OF RAMADHIN MAHTO @ RAMDHIN MAHTO R/O VILLAGE- AMAITHA MANGOSAR, P.S.- SARAIYA (O.P.JAITPUR), DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR

¶20

... ... Petitioner/s

¶21

Versus

¶22

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR

¶23

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶24

====================================================== Appearance :

¶25

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 39437 of 2021)

¶26

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Renu Kumari (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 56190 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Virendra Kumar

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39437 of 2021(3) dt.12-04-2022 2/4

¶28

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3991 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Yugal Kishore For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶31

3 12-04-2022

¶32

Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State.

¶33

Since all the aforesaid three bail applications arise out of Saraiya PS Case No. 810 of 2020 as such all were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶34

Petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Saraiya PS Case No. 810 of 2020 registered under Section 392 of the IPC.

¶35

As per the First Information Report the informant was intercepted by three unknown miscreants riding on a motorcycle without any no. plate and they assaulted the informant by means of Butt of the pistol and took away motorcycle, Samsung mobile, purse containing Rs. 15,000/-, documents and laptop of the informant.

¶36

Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement recorded during the course of investigation. They further submit that petitioners are in custody

¶37

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39437 of 2021(3) dt.12-04-2022 3/4

¶38

since 09.02.2021, 06.02.2020 , 06.02.2021 respectively and charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners under Section 394 of the IPC.

¶39

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State referring to case diary submits that petitioners are history sheeters having large number of criminal antecedents inasmuch as accused Avinandan Sahni @ Kallu (Cr. Misc. 39437 of 2021 ) has 05 criminal antecedents, Sujeet Kumar @ Sanjit Kumar ( Cr. Misc. No. 56190 of 2021 ) has 06 criminal antecedents and Sonu Kumar (Cr. Misc. 3991 of 2022) is having 16 criminal antecedents and from possession of accused Sonu Kumar the looted mobile of the informant was recovered.

¶40

Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties, taking into consideration the materials available on record, the fact that the petitioners have criminal antecedents of similar nature of offence and the opinion of this Court is that they are habitual offenders and history-sheeters and one looted mobile has been recovered from one of the accused persons having 16 criminal antecedents, as such, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioners.

¶41

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of regular bail stands rejected.

¶42

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39437 of 2021(3) dt.12-04-2022 4/4

¶43

However, petitioners may renew their prayer for bail after six months from today if the trial does not show any

¶44

progress.

¶45

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶46

praful/-

¶47

U T

Sonu Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss K Through Her Mother (pseudoname) Vs The State of Bihar

Aniket Pandey @ Aniket Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Bihar

Jitendra Pandit Vs The State of Bihar

Arun Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Nandu Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Shambhu Kumar Mandal @ Shambhu Mandal Vs the State of Bihar