← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23885/2024dismissed

Sachin Patel @ Sumit Patel v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-24Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23885 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2020 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== SACHIN PATEL @ SUMIT PATEL SON OF PURAN PATEL @ PURAN PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST - SEMARIA, P.S. - KATEYA, DISTRICT - GOPALGANJ ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.5 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satya Nand Shukla ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-04-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No.290 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons entered in the house of the informant and committed loot after threatening her on gun point.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and have committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. Petitioner is not named in the FIR but on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. He further submits that there is no recovery of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23885 of 2024(2) dt.24-04-2024 2/2 incriminating articles from the possession of the petitioner or from the house of the petitioner. Petitioner has two criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T