Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11929/2016rejected

Chunu Pandey @ Shankar Jai @ Shankar Jai Kishan Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

2016-06-23Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11929 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -28 Year- 2013 Thana -BHOJPUR GRP CASE District- BHOJPUR ======================================================

1. Chunu Pandey @ Shankar Jai @ Shankar Jai Kishan Pandey Son of Late Rajendra Pandey Resident of Village - Natha Bigha, P.S. - Karakat (Gorari), District - Rohtas (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. D.P.Tiwary(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 23-06-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 364, 365, 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged against unknown for kidnapping of driver with the vehicle of the informant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not at all involved in this case. There is no evidence to show the involvement of the petitioner in the case in the entire case diary. Four persons were apprehended against whom the police submitted charge sheet as it appears from paragraph 267 of the case diary. The apprehended accused disclosed the name of the petitioner but even they did not attribute any overt act or role

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11929 of 2016 (4) dt.23-06-2016 2/2 played by the petitioner. The investigation against the petitioner is still going on. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. It appears that the informant lodged the case when his driver was going to Manjhi, Ballia but he did not return. The vehicle of the informant was found parked and the same was recovered. Four persons were apprehended and they disclosed the name of the petitioner. The driver of the informant is still traceless. Of course, the name of the petitioner has come in the confessional statement of co-accused but the case is of very serious nature. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T