Patna High CourtCR. MISC./57281/2017rejected

Karu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2018-01-02Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.57281 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -17 Year- 2017 Thana -LAXMIPUR District- JAMUI ====================================================== Karu Yadav, Son of Parsuram Yadav, Resident of Village-Kenduwatar, P.S.-Jhajha, District-Jamui.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APp ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-01-2018 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Lakshmipur P.S. Case No. 17/2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is of course named in the F.I.R., but the petitioner was not apprehended on the spot and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. During the course of entire investigation, the police did not collect any tangible material against the petitioner, but it appears from perusal of the F.I.R. itself that police got information, that some criminals had assembled to commit cognizable offence and on such a raiding

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57281 of 2017 (2) dt.02-01-2018 2/2 team was constituted. The raiding team raided the place and apprehended two persons namely, Guddu Kumar and Kapil Yadav. Other accused persons managed to flee away. Guddu Kumar and Kapil Yadav disclosed the name of the petitioner and other accused persons who managed to flee away. From possession of Guddu Kumar and Kapil Yadav arms and ammunitions were also recovered.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that accused persons apprehended on the spot itself disclosed the name of the petitioner that they had assembled to commit crime, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Vinita/- U T