Manoj Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25035 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-477 Year-2018 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== MANOJ PRASAD Son of Ambika Prasad Resident of Village- Pali Pokhar, P.S.- Pali, District- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nitya Nand Neeraj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 25-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner in the present case is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Ghoshi P.S. Case No.477 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of this petitioner has transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused Shambhu Kumar, however, there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the possession of the petitioner and further he has not been identified by the informant.

On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Referring to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25035 of 2019(3) dt.25-07-2019 2/2 statements recorded in the case diary, learned APP submits that the co-accused Shambhu Kumar was identified by the informant and then he has disclosed the entire modus operandi including the name of this petitioner who had actively participated in robing the informant and his motorcycle and other articles. The motorcycle has been recovered from the possession of said Shambhu Kumar.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case where the co-accused from whose possession motorcycle has been recovered has been identified and he has made confessional statement disclosing the modus operandi of the occurrence in which petitioner is said to have actively participated, this Court is not willing to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T