Gyasuddin Ansari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36191 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -124 Year- 2016 Thana -YOGAPATTI DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Gyasuddin Ansari S/o Late Nazir Ansari, resident of Vill- Semari Bhawanipur, P.S Yogapatti (Nawalpur), Distt- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-11-2016 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 124/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 395 was also added later on.
The informant alleged that while he was going to distribute the pension amount to the pensioners, two persons came on a motorcycle bearing registration no. BR22N8821 and snatched the bag containing Rs. 4,90,000/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Two accused persons
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36191 of 2016 (3) dt.08-11-2016 2/2 namely; Shesh Patel and Sonu Patel disclosed the name of the petitioner in their confessional statement and stated that the occurrence took place at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner enquired from the informant as to when he was going to distribute the money and only thereafter the petitioner informed the other accused persons who commit the crime. It is submitted that no C.D.R. is annexed with the case diary, but it appears that during course of investigation two apprehended accused disclosed the name of the petitioner. Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T