Pawan Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.12213 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -53 Year- 2015 Thana -JAYRAMPUR District- SEKHPURA ====================================================== Pawan Paswan, Son of Sri Ganouri Ram, Resident of Village:- Ukhadhi P.S:- Jairampur, District- Sheikhpura.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ambika Bhagat For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dayal (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 25-05-2016 Heard Mr. Ambika Bhagat, for the petitioner and Mr. Dayal, APP for the State.
The petitioner herein seeks anticipatory bail in Jairampur P.S. Case No. 053 of 2015, registered under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant was coming to his home by motorcycle along with another person. 4-5 accused persons intercepted him. They were armed with pistol, iron rod etc. and asked them to handover all their belongings. The accused persons snatched his mobile, money, A.T.M. and other belongings. Co-accused Mantu Paswan was later arrested and in his confessional statement, he disclosed the names of the accused(s) persons who had participated in the crime. The name of the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12213 of 2016 (3) dt.25-05-2016 2/2 transpired in the said statement.
It is stated that except the statement of co-accused Mantu Paswan, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. Learned APP submitted that on conclusion of investigation, chargesheet has only been led against co-accused Mantu Paswas and investigation is kept open in so far as the other accused persons are concerned.
It is a case of highway robbery/dacoity. The informant is not expected to name the accused persons in the commission of crime and it shall come/surface in course of investigation. The investigation is still on. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. The prayer is rejected. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) rohit/- U T