Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48422/2017rejected

Chhotu Rai @ Chhotu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-10-16Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48422 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -44 Year- 2016 Thana -HAJIPUR SADAR DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Chhotu Rai @ Chhotu Kumar S/o Chandeshwar Rai, resident of VillagePanapur, Gaurahi, P.S.- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Chandra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-10-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 44 of 2016, registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the A.C.J.M-X, Vaishali at Hajipur.

The accusation is that informant Gourav Kumar and his colleague Vikas Kumar being the employees of Bandhan Bank were coming to main branch of the Bank at Hajipur to deposit Rs. 27,000/- collected from village Srirampur. In the way, four persons boarded on the motorcycle surrounded them and informant and his associate were asked to give the money anyhow Vikash Kumar fled away from there by raising alarm, but

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48422 of 2017 (2) dt.16-10-2017 2/2 miscreants snatched Rs. 12,100/- from his pocket due to raising alarm by the Vikash Kumar villagers started to reach there in the meantime Police also reached there and one of the miscreants apprehend with the motorcycle, who disclosed his name as Sanoj Rai, who also disclosed the name of his three other associates including the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has been surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused due to grudge and enmity.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner and also the fact that petitioner has criminal antecedent as detailed in para 3 of the petition, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T