Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30415/2023bail rejected

Kallu Kumar Ray @ Bablu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-07-14Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30415 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2023 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== KALLU KUMAR RAY @ BABLU KUMAR Son of Vijay Ray Resident of village - Kutubpur, P.S. - Doriganj, Distt. - Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 14-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Barhara P.S. Case No. 82 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 412 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)a, 26/ 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara.

3. The petitioner along with other accused persons is said to have looted mobile, four ATM card, Pan Card and Driving License from the informant on the point of pistol. The miscreants also looted other truck drivers.

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.30415 of 2023(2) dt.14-07-2023 2/2 specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner came in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Sunil Ray. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and relied upon the judgment of Indresh Kumar vs. State of UP and Anr passed in Cr. Appeal No. 938 of 2022.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of the offence and the judgment of Indresh Kumar (supra), I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

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