Rajaram Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5237 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2023 Thana- PIPRA District- Supaul ====================================================== Rajaram Kumar S/o Jai Narayan Yadav Resident of village Chainsingh Patti Ward no 04, P.S.-Supaul, District Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Patla Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-02-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No.217/2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 399, 402, 414 of the Indian Penal Code & Sections 25(1-b) a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned ACJM-VI, Supaul.
3. In the nature of allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., the court is not inclined to entertain the present anticipatory bail application of the petitioner as the informant alleges that from a vehicle arms and ammunition including knifes were recovered, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no doubt the vehicle belongs to the petitioner but then the petitioner prior to the occurrence had sold the vehicle to one Akshay
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5237 of 2024(2) dt.26-02-2024 2/2 Kumar as would be evident from Annexure-2 to the anticipatory bail application.
4. The learned APP opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the transfer has to be done in accordance with the provisions of the M.V. Act. It is further submitted that after the F.I.R. came to be instituted, it appears that the petitioner by way of after thought has taken this plea as there is nothing on record to suggest that the relevant documents with regard to sale of the vehicle were submitted in the office of the D.T.O.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the court is not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T