Kunal Kumar Yadav @ Kunal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18157 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2021 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Kunal Kumar Yadav @ Kunal Yadav Son Of Shivnath Prasad Yadav @ Shivnath Prasad Resident Of Village- Khairimal, Ps- Pipra, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 05-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking prearrest bail in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 171 of 2021, G.R. Case No. 3495/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code. He has no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph '3' of the application. As per the prosecution story, the informant has alleged that he is a cashier in Swagat Oil Petrol Pump at Ramgarhwa. While he along with his colleague was going on motorcycle with a bag containing Rs. 10,94,148/- from the petrol pump, about 200 meters ahead, three persons on a Apache bike overtaken his motorcycle and took away the bag on the gun point and fled away.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18157 of 2023(2) dt.05-06-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he is a student.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations contained in the order of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motihari showing that in several paragraphs of the case diary materials have come and the CCTV footage of the alleged occurrence has also been collected, the co-accused, from whose possession recovery has been made, has disclosed the name of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, refused.

This application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T