Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30863/2023dismissed

Sandeep Kumar @ Shetti v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-17Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30863 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-372 Year-2022 Thana- BYPASS District- Patna ====================================================== Sandeep Kumar @ Shetti Son Of Late Ashok Mahto Resident Of VillageJaipur Dhanuki Tola, Ps- Agamkuan, Distt- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Y. C. Verma, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Nityanand Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr .Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-08-2023 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act pending in the learned court below.

3. As per the prosecution case, some miscreants fired upon the brother of the informant due to which during the treatment he died.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no named in the F.I.R.. He submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is made accused on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30863 of 2023(3) dt.17-08-2023 2/2 the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused person, namely, Mantosh Kumar. He further submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail application and submits that the allegation levelled as the petitioner is serious in nature. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is also involved in the present case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Bypass P.S. Case No. 372 of 2022. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ajay/- U T