Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1227/2017rejected

Vikram Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-16Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1227 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -90 Year- 2015 Thana -BARUN District- AURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Vikram Singh s/o Ganga Singh

2. Jitan Singh, s/o Late Bindeshwari Singh Both r/v - Jaipur, P.s. - Mufassil, Distt - Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-01-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Barun P.S. Case No. 90/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 386 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that four persons came in front of his vehicle on a Maruti WagonR bearing registration no. BR16N-9607 and they snatched Rs. 16,400/- and mobile having two SIMs. On chase the Maruti WagonR was intercepted by the police. Dhananjay Singh and Sanjeev Kumar were apprehended who disclosed the name of the petitioners. The police recovered Rs. 10,000/- from the possession of the apprehended accused persons.

Mr. Vikramdeo Singh learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1227 of 2017 (2) dt.16-01-2017 2/2 petitioners submits that the apprehended accused persons disclosed the name of the petitioners. Save and except the disclosure made by the accused persons, nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners, but it appears that four persons on account of demanding extortion snatched Rs. 16,400/- and mobile having double SIM from the possession of the informant and while all the accused persons were fleeing away alarm was raised. On chase two persons were apprehended. They on the spot disclosed the name of the petitioners. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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