Intakhab Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22213 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2020 Thana- TARABARI District- Araria ====================================================== INTAKHAB ALAM Son of Md. Khurshid Resident of Village- Batoorbari, Ward No. 3, P.S.- Tarabari, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anamul Haque For the Opposite Party/ :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-02-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Tarabari P.S. Case No. 99 of 2020, registered for the offenses punishable under Sections 461, 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant is the Bank Manager. As usual, he went to the branch on 09.10.2020 in the morning at 10.30 he found that the CCTV camera was not present in the cubical of ATM machine. When the recording of CCTV footage was checked in that footage the present petitioner was identified along with two unknown persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22213 of 2021(3) dt.23-02-2022 2/2 ATM card was issued to the present petitioner one day prior to the occurrence and when he went to activate that ATM card some hot discussion took place between the present petitioner and the Branch Manager as he complained about non-functioning of the ATM machine. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is visually challenged person.

On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that the petitioner was seen in CCTV footage and in Paragraph No. 7, 8, and 9, the witnesses have supported the entire occurrence. He has further stated that prior to the occurrence these witnesses have seen the present petitioner roaming around the ATM machine. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) SONALI/- U T