Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28722/2017rejected

Shambhu Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-19Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28722 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -121 Year- 2014 Thana -LAURIYA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Shambhu Sah Son of late Harishankar Sah Resident of Village- Badka Dubaulia, P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Rajendra Singh Shastriji ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Lauriya P.S. Case No. 121 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that three persons came on a motorcycle and committed robbery of Rs. 30543/- from the pocket of Vikash Kumar and Gharbharan Sah and they also looted away the cash box.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The petitioner was firstly apprehended in Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 459 of 2015 registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and he is said to have

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28722 of 2017 (3) dt.19-08-2017 confessed his guilt. On the basis of such confession, the petitioner has also been implicated in the case. The petitioner has already been granted regular bail in Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 4598 of 2015. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner but, it appears that the case relates to a robbery at a petrol pump and the informant and other staff of the petrol pump claimed to identify the accused. The petitioner may be put on test identification parade after being taken into custody. The petitioner has got criminal antecedent.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) KKSINHA/- U T