Sanjit Kumar @ Rahish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7423 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-570 Year-2023 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Sanjit Kumar @ Rahish Kumar Son of Ramudit Yadav Resident of VillageGidarpur, P.S.-Hulashganj, Distt.-Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate For the State :

Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-03-2024 Heard Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 570 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 24.08.2023 for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to prosecution case, petitioner along with other is said to have looted, a bag containing Rs. 38920/-and some papers, of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7423 of 2024(3) dt.21-03-2024 2/2 the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused person, namely, Subodh Kumar. He further submits that except the aforesaid no other cogent material has come during the investigation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, on the basis of material available on record and case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that recovery has been made from the co-accused person, namely, Subodh Kumar who has confessed the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and apart from that co-accused has transferred the amount in the bank account of the wife of the petitioner.

6. Considering the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R and the material available on record, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 570 of 2023 pending in the court of A.C.J.M., IV, Jehanabad.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) ajay/- U T