Sanjay Saw v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31261 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-267 Year-2020 Thana- JAKKANPUR District- Patna ====================================================== SANJAY SAW Son of Late Yamuna Saw Resident of Saidpur, Nahar Road, Near Kali Mandir Mahendru, P.S.- Kadamkuan, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumar Rajeev For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 27-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Jakkanpur P.S. Case no. 267 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 401, 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner used to purchase stolen articles from co-accused persons, who were apprehended on spot after chasing by the police personnel. From the shop of the petitioner 36.130 gram gold, 2009.920 gram silver and 321.090 gram of German silver along with cash of Rs. 1,56,000/- were recovered from the shop of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31261 of 2021(5) dt.27-06-2022 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is goldsmith and runs his own shop in the name of Sanjay Jewellars and the seized article belongs to the petitioner and has no concern with the apprehended persons. Apprehended accused persons have disclosed the name of the petitioner as his accomplice before the police, which has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. For the alleged recovery, petitioner could not present a chit of supportive document. It is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that petitioner is also involved in the alleged incident, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U