Raghukul Bhushan @ Nanhe Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50036 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -157 Year- 2006 Thana -JAHANABAD District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Raghukul Bhushan @ Nanhe Sharma Son of Jai Narayan Sharma Resident of Village-Parha, P.S. Kinjar, District-Arwal At Present resident at Mohalla-Prem Nagar Horliganj, P.S.- Jehanabad, District-Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Ms. Soni Shrivastava, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 157 of 2006, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was lodged against unknown under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act. During course of investigation the police firstly submitted charge sheet against two accused persons later on the police also submitted supplementary charge sheet showing the petitioner absconder on 31.01.2007. It is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50036 of 2016 (3) dt.09-01-2017 2/2 further submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about submission of charge sheet or surfacing name of the petitioner in the case. All other accused persons who appeared have already been acquitted but it appears that after investigation vide supplementary charge sheet no. 15 of 2007 the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 31.01.2007 showing the petitioner absconder.

Since the petitioner has already been declared absconder, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The petitioner, if so advised, may surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and pray for regular bail, his prayer shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T