Pritam Jayswal @ Pritam Kumar Jayswal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22272 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2018 Thana- BEERPUR District- Begusarai ====================================================== Pritam Jayswal @ Pritam Kumar Jayswal S/o Jay Prakash Jayswal @ Jay Prakash Chaudhary Resident of Village- Muzaffara, P.S.- Birpur, District - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, Muzaffara, Begusarai ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vinod Gautam, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, APP For the UCO Bank :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2019 The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Birpur P.S.Case No. 11 of 2018 registered under Sections 307, 397 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Allegation, as per FIR, is that some miscreants entered inside the Bank and assaulted the bank officials and opened fire causing injury on the leg of the informant. It is alleged that they broke camera and went towards strong room and started broken open it but did not succeed. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. It appears that later on, his name transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that except confessional statement, there is nothing against the petitioner and other case is also related to the same occurrence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22272 of 2019(2) dt.08-04-2019 2/2 Heard learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank. They have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that materials against the petitioner have come in several paragraphs of the case diary which will appear from the impugned order and apart from confessional statement, he is accused in one more case. Having heard both sides and in view of nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to him rather he should surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and make prayer for regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sujit/- U T