Golu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29914 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2018 Thana- BIHPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== GOLU KUMAR, S/o Munna Kumar @ Munna Yadav Resident of VillageAunta, P.S.-Hathidah, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Khurshid Alam, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2021 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Khurshid Alam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Bihpur (Jhandapur) Police Station Case No. 86 of 2018, disclosing offences under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner, on the basis of the First Information Report is that two persons stopped the pick up van of the informant and fled away with the vehicle. It is further alleged that accused persons assaulted the informant and his associate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has been dragged in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, Nikesh Kumar. Learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29914 of 2020(3) dt.19-01-2021 2/2 petitioner next submits that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was in custody in connection with Naugachia P.S. Case No.69 of 2018 and have been granted bail on 24.11.2018. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that during course of investigation, the name of the petitioner has transpired and co-accused has specifically disclosed that the petitioner was also involved in the present offence. Learned counsel next submits that in support of statement that the petitioner was in custody on the date of occurrence, no document has been produced by the petitioner before this Court despite sufficient time having been granted to learned counsel for the petitioner.

Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record and nature of allegation and the fact that petitioner has got criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the prayer for the same is hereby rejected.