Sanjeev Kumar @ Golu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27814 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2022 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== SANJEEV KUMAR @ GOLU ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 39646 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2022 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== NITISH KUMAR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 27814 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1 (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 39646 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dharmendra Kumar Raju For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 12-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27814 of 2022(4) dt.12-12-2022 2/2 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of learned Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there is general and omnibus allegation levelled against the petitioners and there is no material in the case diary against the petitioners. He submits that there is no eye witness in this case. He further submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the police has completed the process under Section 82 & 83 Cr.P.C.

in the present case, hence they do not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined the enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with Lakhisarai P.S. Case No.03/2022. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

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