Dilip Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23791 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -382 Year- 2016 Thana -MEERGANJ District- GOPALGANJ ====================================================== Dilip Singh, son of Lalji Singh, Resident of Village- Balahata, Police Station- Uchkagaon, District- Gopalganj.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mirganj P.S. Case No. 382/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that while he was returning after collecting money three persons came on a motorcycle after overtaking the motorcycle and pushed the informant. Two accused persons on the point of pistol snatched bag of the informant, Samsung mobile and Rs. 70,000/-. The informant claimed to identify the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. During the course of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23791 of 2017 (2) dt.14-07-2017 2/2 investigation one Manish Yadav is said to have confessed his guilt before the police and disclosed the name of the petitioner and another accused, on the basis of disclosure made by Manish Yadav the house of the petitioner was raided, but he was found absconded and house of another accused was raided from where Rs. 17,000/- is said to have been recovered. The informant claimed to identify the accused on seeing them. The case is of robbery and interrogation and identification of the accused is required during the investigation.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T