Chitranjan Mahto @ Chitranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4810 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-866 Year-2023 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== CHITRANJAN MAHTO @ CHITRANJAN KUMAR SON OF SHANKAR MAHTO @ SHANKAR SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA - TAKIYA, P.S. - SASARAM (TOWN), DISTRICT - ROHTAS ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwari For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ramchandra Sahni ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-02-2024
1. 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 Sasaram (Town) Police Station Case No. 866 of 2023, dated 18.09.2023, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a/26 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 18.03.2023, during the petrolling, the police received a secret information that two persons on motorcycle are coming with fire arm, proceeded towards the place of occurrence and intercepted one motorcycle, but the person, who was driving the motorcycle, started fleeing away. However, the police, upon chase, arrested
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4810 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2024 2/2 the pillion rider and the driver of the motorcycle succeeded in fleeing away. The police recovered automatic pistol along with live cartridge from the possession of the pillion rider. The pillion rider has disclosed the name of the petitioner, who succeeded in fleeing away.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the arrested co-accused and no fire arm has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
5. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the fact that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent also and his name has been disclosed by his associate, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. This application is, accordingly, dismissed (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √