Sudhir Mushar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3126 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2020 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.

SUDHIR MUSHAR SON OF BHERA MUSHAR R/O VILLAGEKUTKURI, P.S.- RAFIGANJ, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. 2.

PRAMOD MUSHAR SON OF BIRA MUSHAR R/O VILLAGEKUTKURI, P.S.- RAFIGANJ, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. 3.

SANGRAM MUSHAR @ BAKRI SON OF LATE UDAY MUSHAR R/O VILLAGE- KUTKURI, P.S.- RAFIGANJ, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. 4.

SAKAL MUSHAR SON OF BHERA MUSHAR R/O VILLAGEKUTKURI, P.S.- RAFIGANJ, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rupa Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sangeeta Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Rafiganj P.S. Case No.91 of 2020, giving rise to Sessions Trial No.238 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

Accusation is of snatching purse, locket made of gold and mobile phones from the informant and his friend. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3126 of 2023(2) dt.17-03-2023 2/2 present case. The petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail petition. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not named in the FIR, but during investigation, one co-accused was apprehended and his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he disclosed the name of the petitioners that petitioners are also involved in the present case.

The learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T