Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4183/2022dismissed

Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2022-02-25Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4183 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-695 Year-2021 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== RANJEET KUMAR SON OF PRAMOD YADAV R/O VILLAGEBANCHOLAHA, P.S.- MADHEPURA (GHAILARH O.P.), DISTRICTMADHEPURA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amarnath Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Renuka Ratnakar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State through virtual mode.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Madhepura (Ghailarh OP) P.S. Case No. 695 of 2021 registered under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, while the informant was going from Madhepura to C.S.P. Bancholha by his motorcycle and in the way, three miscreants masked their faces appeared and interrupted him by standing motorcycle ahead of informant and thereafter, the miscreants looted away his motorcycle, laptop, mobile-phone

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4183 of 2022(2) dt.25-02-2022 2/2 and cash Rs. 38,005/- It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from possession of the petitioner.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the Complaint Case/F.I.R. He was identified by the informant in course of committing robbery.

Considering the fact that the petitioner has been identified by the informant, I am not inclined to grant him anticipatory bail and the same is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders in the court below and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudice by this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) A.K.V.//- U T