Ravi Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5131 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2021 Thana- DAUDPUR District- Saran ====================================================== RAVI RAI Son of Akhilesh Ray R/v- Pachpatra P.S.- Revelganj, Dist- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 08-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, petitioner, along with other accused persons, is said to have surrounded the informant and snatched the alleged amount of Rs. 89,570/-, Samsan Tab and key of motorcycle on the point of pistol.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5131 of 2023(2) dt.08-05-2023 2/2 omnibus in nature. No alleged article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. There is nothing on record to indicate the complicity of the petitioner barring the confessional statement of the apprehended co-accused Avinash Ram and Anand Kumar which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T