Nanhaki Ray @ Nanhaki Roy v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33986 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2023 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== Nanhaki Ray @ Nanhaki Roy Son of Ram Chandra Ray Resident of VillageKewla Tal, P.S- Fathua, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mushtaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 30-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Fatuha P.S. Case No. 434 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant is involved in the transportation of TMT Saria at Shiv Shiva Rolling Mill. He communicated with the petitioner, who is the owner of the truck, and subsequently, loaded the vehicle with 25 TMT Saria. The informant alleged that the petitioner, along with other co-accused, absconded with the truck containing the TMT Saria.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33986 of 2024(3) dt.30-08-2024 2/2 case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the alleged Truck and the petitioner is no where concerned with alleged truck in any manner. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is also involved in the present case.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the arguments of the parties, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

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