Subhash Kumar @ Subash Kumar @ Subhas Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5619 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2021 Thana- CHOUTARWA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Subhash Kumar @ Subash Kumar @ Subhas Kumar Son Of Moti Nuniya @ Moti Chaudhri @ Moti R/V- Pokhar Chowk, Near Hanuman Mandir, At Present R/V- Harpurwa, Bagahi, P.S.- Yogapatti, District- West Champaran (Bettiah) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

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

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Chautarwa P.S. Case No. 256 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 457, 380, 413, 414 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st Bagha, West Champaran (Bettiah). As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused person committed theft of the motorcycle of informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5619 of 2023(2) dt.05-05-2023 2/2 petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner is made accused in the present case only on the basis of the confessional statement of the apprehended person. The petitioner has got one criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that process of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. ha been issued against the petitioner and the petitioner is also involved in the present case. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

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