Patna High CourtCR. MISC./27531/2021dismissed

Pappu Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

2022-03-24Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27531 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-397 Year-2020 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna ====================================================== PAPPU KUMAR GUPTA Son of Krishna Prasad Resident of - Central Bank Adarsh Colony, P.S.- Digha, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-03-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in Digha P.S. Case No. 397 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a serious patient suffering with heart aliment and he has taken this Court to some prescriptions which go to show that he is under treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that except the confessional statement of the coaccused, there is nothing against this petitioner to connect him with the present case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27531 of 2021(2) dt.24-03-2022 2/2 Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that these days theft is quite common in the town of Patna and jewelers like the petitioner are purchasing stolen ornaments as such, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy of this Court.

So far as the medical prescriptions are concerned, it is evident that the petitioner is under treatment of doctors, but they do not show that the aliment is very serious. In such kind of cases, the only evidence which comes against the person (jeweler) who purchases stolen ornaments is the confessional statement of co-accused.

In view of the above, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Saif/- U T