Ranjan Pandey @ Ranjan Kr. Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 47851 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -181 Year- 2014 Thana -JANDAHA District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Ranjan Pandey @ Ranjan Kr. Pandey S/o - Dayanand Pandey @ Kuttu Pandey R/o Village - Adampur, P.S. - Goraul, District - Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 06-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in Jandaha P.S. Case No. 181 of 2014 dated 20.07.2014 instituted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner, who is not named in the F.I.R. is of being one among the seven persons who had looted a Bolero Pick-up Van along with 131 cartons of chocolate and also taking away Rs. 300/- cash and mobile hand set.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that besides being not named in the F.I.R., nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession and only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, he has been implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the coaccused who has made the confessional statement has already

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47851 of 2015 (2) dt.06-11-2015 2/2 been granted bail.

Learned A.P.P.

opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner having criminal antecedent of four cases of similar nature and his name coming during investigation cannot be brushed aside since it is only the starting point in a case where the accused is not known to the victim. Moreover, the co-accused has been granted regular bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

The application, accordingly, stands dismissed. However, in the event the petitioner surrenders and prays for bail before the Court below, the same shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the present order.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.

U T