Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail refused; liberty granted to renew the prayer for bail, with any renewed application to be considered on its own merit without prejudice to this rejection.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with Araria P.S. Case No.1081 of 2023, registered under Ss.356 and 379 IPC with Ss.392 and 411 IPC subsequently added.

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R. together with the nature of material that transpired in course of investigation as evident from the trial court's order, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and rejected the application.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail as per the observation/liberty in the order of rejection dated 16.1.2024 passed in Bail Petition no.44 of 2024 of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge IV, Araria.

Key takeaways

If such a renewed application is moved, it shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Partha Sarthy, J.), oral order dated 14-03-2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.14646 of 2024 arising out of Araria P.S. Case No.1081 of 2023: Application for regular bail by Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Kumar in a case registered under Ss.356 and 379 IPC, to which Ss.392 and 411 IPC were added subsequently. The F.I.R. named four unknown accused who allegedly looted Rs.1,61,032/- from the informant and another; the petitioner's name transpired during investigation on the basis of his own confessional statement made before police, and no incriminating article was recovered from him. He was in custody since 16.11.2023 and the chargesheet stood submitted. Considering the F.I.R. allegations and the nature of material transpired in investigation as evident from the trial court's order, the Court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and rejected the application, granting liberty to renew the prayer as per the observation/liberty in the rejection order dated 16.1.2024 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge IV, Araria in Bail Petition No.44 of 2024, with any renewed application to be considered on its own merit without prejudice to this rejection.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14646 of 2024

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1081 Year-2023 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria

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

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Kumar SON OF VICTOR YADAV R/O VILLAGE- KAKORAHA WARD NO.06, P.S.- MAHALGAON, DISTRICTARARIA

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

2 14-03-2024

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for

grant of regular bail in connection with Araria P.S. Case no.1081 of 2023 registered under sections 356 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code to which sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code were added subsequently.

As per the prosecution case, the informant states

that four accused persons on two motorcycles forced the informant and one another to stop and looted them of Rs.1,61,032/.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was registered against four unknown. Referring to the order of the learned trial Court, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner transpired in course of investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of the petitioner made before

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14646 of 2024(2) dt.14-03-2024 2/2

police. Contrary to the allegations, no incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner’s possession. The petitioner is in custody since 16.11.2023 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R. together with the nature of material that has transpired in course of investigation as is evident from the order of the learned trial Court, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail as per the observation/liberty granted to the petitioner in the order of rejection dated 16.1.2024 passed in Bail Petition no.44 of 2024 of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge IV, Araria.

In case such an application is moved by the petitioner, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.