Dismissed

Dhananjay Kumar @ Monu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Nov 2022CR. MISC./41896/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the petitioner's bail prayer in a theft case involving ATM robbery, citing the recovery of stolen money from his house as a strong indication of guilt. The court directed the trial court to commence the trial immediately and conclude it within six months, permitting a renewed bail application if the trial is delayed beyond this period.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected; trial directed to commence immediately and conclude within six months.

Dhananjay Kumar @ Monu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41896 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2022 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda

¶3

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

¶4

Dhananjay Kumar @ Monu Kumar S/o Naresh Prasad R/o MohallaMogalkuan, P.S.- Sohsarai, District- Nalanda

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 17-11-2022

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to

¶12

remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

¶14

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bihar P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 411, 420, 379, 427, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

As per the prosecution, the informant has alleged that a cash of Rs.32,95,500/- was stolen away from the ATM machine.

¶16

The main submissions advanced by the learned counsel Mr. Pramod Kumar for the petitioner are that the petitioner has clean antecedent and languishing in jail since

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41896 of 2022(2) dt.17-11-2022 2/3

¶18

06.03.2022 and till date his trial has not commenced and even the charge has not been framed against him. Further submission is that as per the prosecution Rs.8,50,000/- and a part of the ATM machine concerned were alleged to have been recovered from the house of this petitioner but the said recovered amount of money was not put on Test Identification Parade and as per the prosecution the alleged occurrence of theft was captured on CCTV camera but in this regard no scientific investigation was made and the petitioner was not put on Test Identification Parade.

¶19

Learned APP Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer.

¶20

Heard both the sides and perused the FIR, seizure list and the order impugned. The alleged incident relates to theft of Rs.32,95,000/- committed from an ATM machine and during the course of investigation Rs.8,50,000/- and a part of the ATM machine from which the alleged amount was stolen were allegedly recovered from the house of this petitioner and the said recovery goes against the petitioner. In view of these facts and mainly taking into account the recovery of some part of the stolen amount from the house of the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court the petitioner does not deserve to the privilege of

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41896 of 2022(2) dt.17-11-2022 3/3

¶22

bail. Accordingly, his bail prayer stands rejected.

¶23

As the trial of the petitioner has not commenced as per above submission and the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 06^th March, 2022, hence Court concerned is directed to take steps to start the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same in the next six months. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded in the said period or no significant progress is made in his trial in the next three months, then in the presence of either of these two conditions the petitioner may renew his bail prayer.

¶24

(Shailendra Singh, J.)

¶25

sangam/-

¶26

U T

Dhananjay Kumar @ Monu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Kumar @ Monu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divyanshu Kumar @ Devanshu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Singh @ Madhukar Vs The State of Bihar

Ashtanand Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Nikhil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Gopal Tiwari @ Gopal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar