Mannu Mahakaal @ Sangam Snahel v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6125 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2023 Thana- GAMAHARIYA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Mannu Mahakaal @ Sangam Snahel S/O KULDIP YADAV @ KULDEEP YADAV VILLAGE- BHATRANDHA, WARD NO. 05, PS. GHELADH, DIST. MADHEPURA-852124.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Hriday Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Asha Devi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gamharia P.S. Case No. 94 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, when the informant was in the way to his house from the market, three miscreants came by a motorcycle, out of them, one pointed pistol to the informant and snatched Rs. 25,000/-. One of the miscreants forcibly took away mobile set from his pocket. On alarm raised by the informant, the villagers assembled there and one of the miscreants was apprehended after a little chase, who disclosed his name as Dilkhush Kumar. He also disclosed names of his associates as Vivek Yadav @ Raja and Mannu Mahakal (the petitioner).

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6125 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2024 2/2

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Nothing was recovered from his possession and his name has figured in the confessional statement of co-accused.

3. As per allegation, the accused persons pointed pistol upon the informant and snatched away some cash from his possession. The arrested accused persons disclosed the name of this petitioner and the petitioner has got criminal antecedent of two cases.

4. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, I do not think it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/AKV U T