Raja Babu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7459 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2022 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== RAJA BABU Son of Kuldeep Rai R/V- Baligaun, PS- Baligaun Dist- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mirityunjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Pushpa Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 08-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Patepur P.S. Case No. 218 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 414, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vaishali at Hajipur or Successor Court, Vaishali at Hajipur. As per the prosecution case, on the basis of secret information that two persons were getting two stolen vehicles washed at service center, the informant along with other police forces departed and reached the service center from where two persons started fleeing, one of them was apprehended. 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. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7459 of 2023(2) dt.08-05-2023 2/2 submits that the name of the petitioner has been transpired in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of the apprehended person, namely, Vikash Kumar. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that 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 petitioners surrender 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