Md. Tajmul @ Tajamul v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30550 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-379 Year-2020 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia ====================================================== MD. TAJMUL @ TAJAMUL SON OF MD. JALALUDDIN R/OMILKITOLA, P.S.- K. NAGAR, DISTRICT- PURNEA. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md Fazle Karim, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar Nirala, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-04-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 379 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation, when the husband of the informant was withdrawing money from ATM, a person standing behind him exchanged his ATM Card and had withdrawn Rs. 53,333/- and also made some shopping using his ATM card.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in CCTV footage co-accused Ajit Kumar was identified and the name of the present petitioner has been emerged in the confessional

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30550 of 2021(4) dt.25-04-2022 2/2 statement of Ajit Kumar. He has submitted that except the confessional statement of Ajit Kumar there is nothing against the petitioner in the case diary.

Learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that purchase receipt was recovered from the house of the present petitioner to which learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the purchaser of those articles is not the petitioner rather the purchaser is co-accused Ajit Kumar.

It has not been clarified as to how the receipt of purchase have been recovered from the house of the present petitioner after confessional statement of the co-accused Ajit Kumar. I do not think it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T