Rajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5593 of 2016 Arising out of PS.Case No. -106 Year- 2014 Thana -SAMASTIPUR District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar, Son of Jai Narayan Singh @ Dev Narayan Mahto, resident of Village- Shivnathpur, P.S.- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Smt.Renuka Ratnakar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 106 of 2014 for the offences instituted under Sections 379 and 511/34 of the IPC. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while the informant alongwith constable Vijay Kumar Raut was on patrolling duty and in course of going to B. Ed. College, they saw one boy sitting on a Glamour Motorcycle and was trying to start the Bike and another youngster was standing near the Bike. They caught them and demanded papers of the Motorcycle, but they could not produce any papers. On search, from possession of Chandan Kumar, two king master

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5593 of 2016 (2) dt.28-03-2016 2/2 keys and from possession of another youngster Prakash Kumar Baitha, one king master key were recovered. Both were arrested. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused except for that there is no other material to suggest his implication in the present case.

On behalf of the State it has been submitted that the petitioner is said to have participated in committing the theft of a Motorcycle.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 106/2014, pending in the court of the learned C.J.M., Samastipur. Anyhow, if the petitioner surrenders in the court below the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T