Arun Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79728 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2018 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia ====================================================== Arun Mehta Son of Sita Ram Mehta Resident of village- Mokma, P.s. Dhamdaha, District- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bijendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sri Nawal Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 02-05-2019 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 143 of 2018, registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea.

The accusation is of snatching of cash, mobile and also key of the motorcycle by two persons, who came on Apachi motorcycle, from the informant. The informant detailed the physique of the culprits.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. In course of investigation the name of the petitioner surfaced in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79728 of 2018(3) dt.02-05-2019 2/2 confessional statement of co-accused Budhdeo Kumar Thakur from whose possession the snatched cash and mobile are said to be recovered. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposed the pre-arrest bail of the petitioner and submits that the name of the petitioner surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Budhdev Kumar Thakur from which the snatched cash and mobile were recovered and informant has claimed to identify the culprits on seeing them again. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U