IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.31719 of 2010
SURENDRA YADAV @ SURENDRA SINGH SON OF SRI RAM BILASH
SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VARUNA, P.S. FATWAH,
DISTRICT PATNA.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
5. 17.9.2010. Perused the office note. Office
note indicates that in compliance with
earlier order, complaint has already been
filed.
This is the second attempt for
grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner.
Earlier prayer for bail of this petitioner
was rejected by order dated 25.2.2010
passed in Cr. Misc. No.41099 of 2009. The
prayer for bail was rejected on two
grounds, firstly, it was a case relating to
road hold up and secondly, on the ground of
chequerred criminal antecedents of the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner, while pressing the present
petition, has heavily relied on two orders
passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.45098
of 2009 (Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rai) and
order dated 2.8.2010 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.24673 of 2010. It was submitted that
subsequent to rejection of bail of this
2
petitioner, other two accused persons were
granted bail by this Court. Accordingly, it
has been submitted that it is a case of
change of circumstances and as such
petitioner may also be granted privilege of
bail.
I have perused both orders i.e.
order dated 9.4.2010 and 2.8.2010. By order
dated 9.4.2010 in Cr. Misc. No.45098 of
2009, accused Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rai was
granted bail mainly on the ground that
petitioner Raj Kumar was having clean
antecedents. This Court had also called for
a report from the Superintendent of Police,
which supported the stand of Raj Kumar.
Accordingly, Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Rai was
granted bail. On the basis of bail granted
to Raj Kumar, prayer for bail of accused
Ramanand Yadav was allowed by this Court by
its order dated 2.8.2010 in Cr. Misc.
No.24673 of 2010.
Accordingly, court is of the
opinion that other co-accused were not
having their case on similar footing like
the petitioner. I do not find any new
3
ground to entertain the present petition.
Prayer for bail is rejected.
Keeping in view the fact that the
petitioner is in custody, it is desirable
to direct the court below to proceed with
the case expeditiously and conclude the
same without any delay.
( Rakesh Kumar,J.)
N.H./