Tabarak v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3555 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2021 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== TABARAK Son of Md. Yunus Resident of Village - Nurchak, Ward No.13, P.s.- Bhargama, Distt.- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Naresh Ray ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-08-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 96 of 2021 registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, The informant is collection agent of Bandhan Bank and after collection of Rs. 1,20,700/-, he was going to deposit the money in the Bandhan Bank and when he reached near Primary School, Paikpar, one miscreant stopped the motorcycle at the point of pistol and two miscreants emerged thereafter, and they comitted loot of collected money and they fled away.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3555 of 2022(2) dt.10-08-2022 2/2 petitioner was not arrested at the spot, nothing was recovered from his possession and his name has only figured in the confessional statement of co-accused.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Ram Naresh Ray has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the co-accused not only named the petitioner, but also the petitioner was identified in the CCTV footage by the co-accused itself.

The investigation is still continuing, as such, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders before the court below make a prayer for regular bail, that shall be disposed of without being prejudiced by this order. The learned court below may take notice of the fact that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedent. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) shweta/mahesh U T