Gaurav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5353 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-477 Year-2022 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Gaurav Kumar Son of Mukesh Mahto @ Mukesh Kumar Resident of Village - Mahsar, P.S.- Sheikhpura (Sarari O.P.), District - Sheikhpura40 ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner in the present case is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 477 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 414, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. He has got two criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution story, the son of the informant, namely, Dhananjay Kumar was returning along with Munna Kumar, on the way the accused persons including this petitioner abducted him on gun point and also demanded ransom of Rs.2 lakhs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5353 of 2023(2) dt.16-05-2023 2/2 transpired in the statement of the apprehended accused. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the name of this petitioner has transpired in the statement of the apprehended accused who were also allegedly involved in the kidnapping of the person, namely, Dhananjay Kumar, the petitioner who is having two criminal antecedents does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, refused.

In case the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail within a period of four weeks from today, his prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudice by the order of this Court.

This application is disposed of accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U T