Sekh Rayeesh @ Md Rahish v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20404 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2020 Thana- KAHALGAON District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Sekh Rayeesh @ Md Rahish Son Of Sekh Kallu R/O Village- Khanpur, P.S.- Pirpainty (WRONGLY Written As Shivnarayanpur In The Impugned Order), District- Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-01-2022 Due to the third wave of COVID-19 Pandemic, the matter is being taken up by way of Virtual Court proceeding. The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual mode.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the Office, within a period of four weeks after restoration of normalcy.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Kahalgaon (Shivnarayanpur) P.S. Case No. 01/2020 registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.. The prosecution allegation, in short, is that the unknown accused persons, variously armed looted DIGT track machine and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20404 of 2021(2) dt.17-01-2022 2/2 fled away.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused. There is no recovery of any incriminating articles from the possession of the petitioner.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R but in course of investigation, in paragraph 24 of the Case Diary, an independent eye witness has taken the name of the petitioner alleging his participation in the robbery. The said fact is evident from the order of the Sessions Court also.

Considering the same, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Kahalgaon (Shivnarayanpur) P.S. Case No. 01/2020. Prayer is rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders in the Court below and prays for bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/- U T