Pintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51923 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -74 Year- 2014 Thana -RAJGIR District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Pintu Kumar S/o Shri Suresh Sah Resident of Silao, P.S. - Silao, District - Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dineshwar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 26-06-2015 Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Rajgir P.S. Case No. 74 of 2014 registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant was traveling on a motorcycle with a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. It is stated that four accused persons overtook the motorcycle, intercepted him and on gun point, robbed him of his motorcycle and mobile phone. The F.I.R. was accordingly registered against unknown.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also a businessman like the informant. Except the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is nothing tangible against him.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51923 of 2014 (4) dt.26-06-2015 2/2 Contention of the petitioner is that the age of the accused disclosed does not tally with the petitioner who has just passed matriculation examination. It is also stated that some of the co-accused has since been released on bail by the Court below. The petitioner does not carry criminal antecedent.

Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that in the confessional statement of co-accused as well as the petitioner, his complicity has surfaced. The informant, in course of investigation, has also named the petitioner as one of the accused. Considering the seriousness of the allegation and the materials reflected from the impugned order, in my view, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. Prayer is accordingly rejected.

In case the petitioner surrenders and prays for bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit uninfluenced by the present order.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U