Uttam Kumar Chaudhary @ Uttam Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2501 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-423 Year-2023 Thana- DAUDPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Uttam Kumar Chaudhary @ Uttam Chaudhary Son of Uma Shankar Chaudhary Village -Tarawa Pojhia P.S- Kopa District -Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akbar Ali, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 13-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Daudpur P.S. Case No. 423 of 2023 registered for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that informant runs one cyber cafe and he is also engaged in job of withdrawal of money from ATM on the basis of Aadhar Card. On the date of alleged incident, four unknown accused persons reached his shop in the early morning at 9 O' Clock and snatched his black colour bag on gun point along with other articles. This bag contained one laptop computer, charger, keyboard, one mobile phone, one micro ATM Machine, cash of Rs. 47,000/-etc.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2501 of 2025(2) dt.13-02-2025 2/2 is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case and has committed no offence. He further submits that no stolen article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner or from his house. He next submits that the name of the petitioner has surfaced in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Pintu Bansfor. He further submits that petitioner is having no criminal antecedent.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that during the course of investigation name of the petitioner has surfaced which can be made the basis of further investigation in which custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer of petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Siwani/- U T