Anil Yadav @ Anil Kumar @ Avnish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18129 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2021 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Anil Yadav @ Anil Kumar @ Avnish Kumar Son of Lakshman Singh @ Laxman Singh Resident of Village Sakhuan, Police Station Dinara, District Rohtas at Sasaram.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramchandra Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jai Narain Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 18-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Karhagar (Barahari) P.S. Case No.132 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is said to have stolen the Scorpio vehicle of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. It is further submitted that during investigation, the police has recovered the said vehicle from possession of co-accused, Dipanshu Kumar and on the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18129 of 2022(2) dt.18-08-2022 2/2 confessional statement of Dipanshu Kumar, the petitioner has been made accussed in the present case. It is also submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is made accused in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, Dipanshu Kumar from whose possession the said vehicle was recovered. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Sanjay/- U T