Kamlesh Kumar @ Kamlesh Rajak v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.41474 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -149 Year- 2015 Thana -SALIMPUR District- PATNA ======================================================
1. Kamlesh Kumar @ Kamlesh Rajak Son of late Binod Rajak Resident of Madhora, P.S. Deep Nagar, District Nalanda.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjiv Sharan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 07-12-2016 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Salimpur P.S. case No. 149 of 2015 under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1-b) A/26 of the Arms Act. The police was checking the vehicles. Three persons came on a motor cycle. The informant told them to stop but two persons managed to flee away. One Ajay Kumar was apprehended and from his possession loaded country made pistol and cartridges were recovered. Ajay Kumar disclosed the name of petitioner and one another co-accused, who managed to flee away. The vehicle was found to be robbed article of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. case No. 379 of 2015 registered under Section 392 of the IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41474 of 2016 (3) dt.07-12-2016 2/2 petitioner was pillion rider on the motor cycle along with one another accused. The name of the petitioner is figured in the case in the confessional statement of co-accused, Ajay Kumar, who was apprehended with stolen motor cycle.
It appears that petitioner, along with two other persons, was also sitting on the motor cycle, which was found to be robbed article of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. case No. 379 of 2015 registered under Section 392 of the IPC. The petitioner has got criminal antecedent.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T