Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29870/2023dismissed

Ravi Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-28Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29870 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-236 Year-2016 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ravi Mahto Son Of Arvind Mahto @ Arvind Prasad Singh Village- Chainpur Ps- Kudhani Turki Op Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No.Ii For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Asha Devi ====================================================== 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 Vaishali (Belsar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 236 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 413, 414 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur.

3. Allegedly, one Bikash Kumar was apprehended and two stolen motorcycles have been recovered from different place and he stated the name of the petitioner with the allegation that the petitioner used to sale the stolen motorcycle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29870 of 2023(3) dt.28-08-2023 2/2 specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., the name of the petitioner has been transpired in this case only on the confessional statement of co-accused, Vikash Kumar. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offfence, 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) anand/- U T