Sonu Sharma @ Sumit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23347 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-411 Year-2021 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Sonu Sharma @ Sumit Kumar, S/O Sri Birendra Kumar Sharma R/O VillageRamtola, P.S.- Musharigharari, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 414/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of six cases and the informant alleges that criminals after looting cash and mobile were roaming when two accused persons were apprehended and the apprehended accused disclosed that the petitioner has kept the looted motorcycle.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23347 of 2022(2) dt.07-11-2022 2/2 next submitted that his name transpired in the confessional statement of arrested accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted that the accused disclosed that the looted motorcycle was with the petitioner. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that petitioner has antecedent of six cases and accused were apprehended on the spot and it were they, who disclosed his name as on seeing the police other accused persons have fled away.

Considering the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T