Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29679/2023dismissed

Ranjeet Rai v. The State Of Bihar

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29679 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2019 Thana- CHHAURADANO District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ranjeet Rai Son Of Vinod Ray Resident Of Village - Bela Jitpur, P.S.- Jitna, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey ====================================================== 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 Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 143 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to be the member of gang, who used to commit offence after stealing 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.29679 of 2023(3) dt.28-08-2023 2/2 specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot and nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession or from his house. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail and submitted that from perusal of para-183 of the case diary it appears that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent, which has not been mentioned in this application. Thus, the petitioner has tried to suppress this fact and on this ground alone, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. As petitioner has tried to suppress his criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant him privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is hereby rejected.

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