Aditya Kashyap v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26978 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2022 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Aditya Kashyap Son of Rabindra Prasad R/V- Sataha, Patwari Tola, PSPaharpur Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Paharpur P.S. Case No. 52 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XI, East Champaran at Motihari.

3. As per prosecution case, son of the informant had forcibly taken the four wheeler vehicles and a mobile of the informant. The staff of the petitioner abused the informant and threatened the informant to the extent that the entire property should be registered in the name of both the staff unless they will kill her. Petitioner also used to abuse the daughter and sonin-law of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26978 of 2023(3) dt.28-08-2023 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner and all the allegation made in the FIR is false and concocted. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner had forcibly taken the informant's (petitioner's mother) vehicle and threatened her to kill her through his staffs.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case as also the nature of the offence and allegation made in the FIR, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) saurabhkrsinha/- U T