Suraj Kumar Ram @ Suraj Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24051 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2022 Thana- DARBHANGA RPF/POST DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Suraj Kumar Ram @ Suraj Ram Son of Surendra Ram Resident of VillageKamalpur, Ward No.- 14, P.O. and P.S- Pandaul, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jai Narain Thakur, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in RPF/POST/DBG Case No. 14 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 3RP(UP) Act.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons are said to have committed theft of diesel from power car of Train No. 15559/60. One of the coaccused persons has been apprehended by the police, who disclosed the name of the petitioner.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and he has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24051 of 2024(2) dt.24-04-2024 2/2 He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. There is no evidence against the petitioner either direct or indirect. Not a single drop of diesel has been recovered from his possession and form his house. There is nothing on record to indicate the complicity of the petitioner barring the confessional statement of the apprehended person which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

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

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