Rajesh Rai @ Rajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20899 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2019 Thana- SIWAIPATTI DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Rajesh Rai @ Rajesh Kumar Son of Rambabu Rai Resident of Village - Fazilpur, P.S.- Rajepur, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Dilip Kumar Tondon, Advocate For the Opposite Party:

Mr. J.K. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 08-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Shivaipatti P.S. Case No. 102 of 2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with snatching of Rs. 14,500/- and mobile phone from the informant at gunpoint. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been apprehended at the spot rather his name has transpired on the extra judicial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20899 of 2020(7) dt.08-01-2021 2/2 confessional statement of co-accused Sanoj Kumar. No incriminating article has been recovered from his conscious possession.

4. Learned APP appears and opposes the bail petition, inviting reference to the criminal antecedents of the petitioner who has been accused as many as 13 prior cases, some of them of similar nature as enumerated in paragraph-3 of the petition.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence alleged as well as the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed.

6. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made 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.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U