Md. Nanhku @ Sameer v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28660 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-577 Year-2019 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia ====================================================== MD. NANHKU @ SAMEER SON OF HAIDAR ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SIPAHI TOLA (CHHOTI MASJID), P.S.- K.HAT, DISTRICTPURNEA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, A.P.P.

Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedy, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 379, 411 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is not named in the F.I.R. and the allegation in the F.I.R. pertains to abduction of an old couple by unknown accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was against unknown and the name of this petitioner transpired during the course of investigation when one Ajit was arrested who disclosed that he had killed the old couple and thrown their body in a river by scathing the body in a bag, further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28660 of 2022(3) dt.20-12-2022 2/2 the said Ajit in his confessional statement had named the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Ajit in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant submits that during the course of investigation, it transpired that this petitioner was in touch with Ajit through mobile as it has come when C.D.R was investigated, further the cow and calf were recovered at the instance of this petitioner who had taken the said animals to some other place on the orders of Ajit.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the informant and the fact that the case is in nascent phases of investigation, the court is not inclined to extend the privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T