Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13549 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2019 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Sonu Kumar Son of Surjeet Singh Resident of Village - Law, P.S. - Tekari, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Veer For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-03-2020 Heard counsel for the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 288 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant along with his brother was returning his house by his motorcycle, in the way near Umrai Bigha Petrol Pump, some miscreants boarded on two motorcycles surrounded the informant and his brother and began to abuse and assault. It is further alleged that the miscreants started to snatch one bag from the hand of the informant. On being protested, the miscreants took out a pistol from waist and pointed out on the head of the informant and bag was being snatched containing cash of RS. 40,000/- along with key of the shop. On alarm, when the people gathered there, five miscreants succeeded to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13549 of 2020(2) dt.06-03-2020 2/2 flee away by motorcycle and one person was apprehended, who disclosed the name of co-accused, Pawan Kumar. He also disclosed the name of this petitioner besides co-accused Chandan Singh and others being his accomplices. It is submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Name of this petitioner has come on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. Petitioner has got clean antecedent.

Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that petitioner is named in the FIR and there is specific allegation against this petitioner that he along with others looted cash from the informant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T