Sanjan Kumar @ Sanjan Yadav @ Sanjay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8576 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2021 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== SANJAN KUMAR @ SANJAN YADAV @ SANJAY YADAV S/o Dhanushdhari Yadav R/o Village- Sakhwa, P.S.- Bithan, Distt- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar, No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 18-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bakhri P.S. Case No. 208 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Begusarai.

As per prosecution case, three persons on one white Apache motorcycle dashed informant's motorcycle by the time he could control himself the three persons took out arms and snatched his bag in which Rs. 3, 74, 620/- was kept. 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 petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8576 of 2023(2) dt.18-04-2023 2/2 He submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., the name of the petitioner came in this case on the basis of confessional statement of one co-accused. He submits that the brother of the petitioner had lodged a case against co-accused, Raju Kumar, therefore, he disclosed the name of the petitioner. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para3 of the bail application. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the process under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner. 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.

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