Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6957 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -150 Year- 2017 Thana -ATRI District- GAYA ====================================================== Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar, Son of Naresh Yadav, Resident of Village-Narawat, P.S. Atri, District-Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lilawati Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Arif ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 17-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Atri P.S. Case No.150 of 2017 registered under Sections 414, 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although it is alleged that a stolen motorcycle has been recovered from the house of this petitioner, however, the seizure list has not been properly prepared. It is further submitted that the name of this petitioner has transpired on the confessional statement of the co-accused Sonu Kumar from whose possession also stolen motorcycle has been recovered.
Learned A.P.P. for the State is present and opposed
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6957 of 2018 (2) dt.17-02-2018 2/2 the application for anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. submits that since stolen motorcycle has been recovered from the house of the petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances particularly that the police initially chased three persons and then caught hold of them and on their information raided the house of co-accused Sonu Kumar from where stolen motorcycle was recovered and then on the disclosure made by said Sonu Kumar again motorcycle has been recovered from possession of the house of this petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) N.H./- U T