Munsi Mahto @ Mansi Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14629 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2022 Thana- TARAIYA District- Saran ====================================================== Munsi Mahto @ Mansi Mahto Son of Bigan Mahto R/o Village- Devlakha Bhithi, P.S.- Baniapur, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anjani Parashar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Taraiya P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, the informant was going by his pick-up vehicle which was loaded with iron sheets. Meanwhile, four miscreants in a car overtook him and abducted the informant and took away his pick-up vehicle along with other materials.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the first information report. The name of the petitioner has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14629 of 2024(6) dt.20-09-2024 2/2 surfaced on basis of the confessional statement of co-accused Rohit Kumar. Except the confessional statement, there is nothing on the record to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. Petitioner bears criminal antecedent of four cases in which he is already on bail. No looted article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and it has been submitted that petitioner has one similar and identical criminal antecedent to the present case besides three other criminal antecedents.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that petitioner has one similar and identical criminal antecedent besides three other antecedents, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) mcv/- U T