Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18472 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2022 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Son Of Ranjeet Kumar Sharma (wrongly Mentioned As Siyaram Sharma In Fir) Resident Of Village-Panapur Silauthar, P.S.-Jandaha, Distt.-Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Deepak Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 26-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Jandaha P.S. Case No. 168 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 393, 414 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur. As per the prosecution case, three miscreants, armed with country made pistol, entered in the office of the informant and threatened him. Thereafter, the informant rang the alarm, on which the miscreants started to flee away and one of them was nabbed. The petitioner is said to have brought those miscreants on his motorcycle.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18472 of 2023(3) dt.26-06-2023 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that only allegation against the petitioner is that he brought the three persons to village Mahindware by his vehicle, which does not imply that the petitioner is also their accomplish. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para3 of the bail application. Learned APP for the State opposes prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is also involved in the present case.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T