Batasa @ Kishori Yadav @ Karu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12349 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2018 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada ====================================================== BATASA @ KISHORI YADAV @ KARU YADAV, age about 30 years(Male), Son of Pragas Yadav Resident of Village - Mahuli, Siswan, P.S.- Nawada, District - Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Man Mohan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Veena Rani Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 22-05-2019 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Rajauli P.S. Case No.118 of 2018 registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.
The driver of the truck disclosed that 5-6 persons riding on Bolero vehicle overtake the truck and got the truck stopped. At the point of revolver and knife, the accused persons looted away the mobiles and cash from the vehicle after tying his hands and leg.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Name of the petitioner figured in the case in the confessional statement of co-accused. Similarly situated one co-accused namely, Rakesh Das @
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12349 of 2019(3) dt.22-05-2019 2/2 Rakesh Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by order dated 21.12.2018 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.76532 of 2018 but it appears that name of the petitioner was disclosed by the accused from whose possession several looted articles and cash were recovered. The mobile phones of the informant was also recovered. The apprehended accused disclosed the name of the petitioner and others who were accompanying the apprehended accused. It is a case of highway dacoity and the informant claimed to identify the criminals. During the course of investigation, the petitioner is required to be interrogated and put on T.I.P. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid and nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T