Dharmendra Mahato @ Dharmendra Kumar Mahato v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8007 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -63 Year- 2016 Thana -SIDHWALIA District- GOPALGANJ ====================================================== Dharmendra Mahato @ Dharmendra Kumar Mahato, Son of Chandrakeshwar Mahato, Resident of Village- Larauli, Police StationSidhwalia, Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sidhwalia P.S. Case No. 63 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 401, 413, 414, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, in the house of Binod Mahato, Binod Mahato was apprehended and after search white colour Apache stolen motorcycle was recovered and on interrogation Binod Mahato stated the name of the petitioner and one Rakesh Kumar that they used to bring stolen motorcycle and then at the betel shop of the petitioner raid was conducted and from there four stolen motorcycles were recovered and Rakesh Kumar, Mithilesh

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8007 of 2017 (2) dt.03-03-2017 2/2 Mahato and Rohit Kumar were apprehended. Rakesh Kuamr also stated the name of the petitioner that they used to purchase stolen motorcycle and after preparing forged document used to sale on higher price.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has got no concern with Binod Mahato and Rakesh Kumar and they have falsely stated the name of the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. opposes by submitting that at the betel shop of the petitioner four motorcycles were recovered and, as such, he does not deserve pre-arrest bail. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest to him and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Sidhwalia P.S. Case No. 63 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Gopalganj.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T