Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25143/2024bail rejected

Pankaj Kumar @ Rajnikant Kumar @ Pankaj Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-01Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25143 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-482 Year-2023 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar @ Rajnikant Kumar @ Pankaj Ram S/o Ajay Ram Resident of Village- Kawalpura, P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nalin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rana Randhir Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Mashrakh P.S. Case No. 482 of 2023 lodged on 13.09.2023 for offences punishable under Section 461, 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution story F.I.R. has been lodged against two named accused persons with an allegation that they have committed theft in the shop of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further submits that petitioner has clean antecedents and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further submits that the name of the petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25143 of 2024(2) dt.01-05-2024 2/2 inserted only and only by virtue of suspicion and alleged CCTV footage which cannot be accepted in law.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the name of the petitioner has been inserted in this case by the informant after observing the CCTV footage and in the F.I.R., he has also attached the video footage of CCTV camera as well as from the rejection order of the Session Court where it has indicated by the police that police has observed the alleged CCTV footage and described in paragraph 6 of the case diary.

6. As such, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Sunnykr/- U