Nitesh @ Yash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13404 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2020 Thana- LAUKARIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Nitesh @ Yash Kumar S/o Arun Mishra R/o vill - Kaua, Dhangar, P.S. - Raxaul, Distt. - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-06-2024

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Laukariya P.S. Case No. 33/ 2020 dated 03.06.2020 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against this petitioner, there is one criminal antecedent which relates to Naurangia P.S. case No. 36/ 2020 and after institution of the present F.I.R. he was in custody in connection with the said case and granted bail on 04.01.2024 but he was not remanded in the present matter which shows that the Investigating Officer did not think necessary to keep the petitioner in custody for interrogation. Learned counsel further submits that so far as merit of the allegation is concerned, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13404 of 2024(3) dt.21-06-2024 2/2 instant matter relates to loot and the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and during investigation, his role in the alleged crime surfaced in the statement of the co-accused and except this, there is no material to connect him to the alleged crime.

4. Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, learned APP appearing for the State opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner.

5. Heard the parties and perused the F.I.R. and case diary. Though, the F.I.R. was registered against unknown persons and in the case diary, there is nothing against the petitioner except the confessional statement of the co-accused but admittedly the investigation against the petitioner is still going on and as per prosecution's case the petitioner was involved in the alleged crime, therefore, this court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer stands rejected. (Shailendra Singh, J) BKS/- U T