Patna High CourtCR. MISC./810/2016dismissed

Gobardhan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2016-02-15Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 810 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1224 Year- 2014 Thana -SASARAM MUFFSIL District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Gobardhan Singh son of Girja Shankar Singh, Resident of villageDhankadha, P.S. Sasaram (M) District- Rohtas .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh 5 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

15-02-2016 Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in Sasaram (Darigon) P.S. Case No. 1224 of 2014 registered for the offence under Sections 144, 379, 201, 384 & 353 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown, only registration number of Maruti Car was mentioned, which was shown to be involved in the occurrence. He submits that after lodging of the F.I.R., the petitioner has been made accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having clean

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.810 of 2016 (3) dt.15-02-2016 2/2 antecedent.

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

In the F.I.R., there is specific accusation that when a tractor with trailer alleged in illegal mining of stone chips was apprehended and was being carried for completing further formalities on N.H., the said vehicle was intercepted by accused persons seating on the Maruti Alto car. At the time of occurrence, number of motorcycle riders also came and by force, they snatched tractor. During investigation, it has come that the petitioner was the owner of the Maruti car in question. In view of the facts and circumstances, particularly involvement of the vehicle of the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T