Himanshu Kumar Chaturvedi @ Bablu Baba v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32980 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -128 Year- 2016 Thana -TARAIYA District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Himanshu Kumar Chaturvedi @ Bablu Baba Son of Sri Sidheshwar Chturvedi Resident of Village- Bagahi, Police Station- Amnour, DistrictSaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Das For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Arun Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Taraiya P.S. Case No. 128 of 2016 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 413, 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, in brief, is that when the police party was checking vehicles, the accused persons sitting on Bolero Jeep started fleeing away. A chase was offered and the accused persons were intercepted and on asking to produce the vehicle papers, they did not produce. It is also alleged that the said jeep was stolen.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32980 of 2016 (3) dt.09-12-2016 2/2 no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from the possession of the petitioner. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner has come in course of investigation and there are two more cases of identical nature pending against the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Anyhow if the petitioner surrenders in the court below within a period of six weeks from today, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) rohit/- U T