Rajgir Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6992 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 2013 Thana -SINGHIYA District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Rajgir Yadav, Son of Lal Bahadur Yadav, Resident of Village- Salepur, P.S.- Singhiya, District- Samastipur (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. S. Etheshamuddin, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Singhiya P.S. Case No. 29 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379 & 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

Truck of the informant bearing registration no. BR1G-5813 was stolen away when it was parked at the door of the informant and during investigation the name of the petitioner and others transpired as the witnesses vide para 20 and 21 of the case diary have stated that they saw the petitioner driving the said truck and other accused were also sitting there in the truck, further Md. Rustam has confessed his guilt stating the name of the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6992 of 2017 (4) dt.10-04-2017 2/2 also and at his instance the said truck was recovered. Submission is of false implication and that the witnesses who have stated the name of the petitioner are on inimical term with the petitioner vide Annexure-4, the petitioner has got no concern with the said truck, nothing has been recovered from the house of the petitioner but the police is searching him for arrest and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail by submitting that witnesses have seen the petitioner taking away the truck and he was driving the truck and further other witnesses have stated that petitioner character is suspicious. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the aforesaid material collected during investigation, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to him and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Singhiya P.S. Case No. 29 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T