Patna High CourtCR. MISC./74003/2018rejected

Kamlesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2018-12-19Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.74003 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-309 Year-2018 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran ====================================================== Kamlesh Rai, S/o Mukhlal Rai@ Mukhlal Yadav Resident of VillageShawajpur, P.S. Marhowrah, Distt. Saran at Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar -2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-12-2018 Heard both sides.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Marhowrah P.S. Case No.309 of 2018, registered under Sections 399, 402 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-b) a, 26, 27 of the Arms Act.

The SHO of Marhowrah police station on secret information that some dacoits had assembled in the orchard and they were planning to commit dacoity, the informant constituted a raiding party and raided the place of occurrence. Two persons were apprehended from there and other accused persons managed to flee away. The apprehended accused disclosed their name as Nanhaki Nut @ Sunil and Annu Nut.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR. Nothing has been recovered

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.74003 of 2018(2) dt.19-12-2018 2/2 from possession of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner surfaced in the case only in the confessional statement of other accused. Petitioner is the son of owner of the vehicle seized in this case. The driver of the vehicle was plying the vehicle on hire and petitioner has no manner of concern with the occurrence but it appears that two accused persons were apprehended from the spot and stated the name of the petitioner as one of their accomplices and disclosed that the petitioner and others had assembled there to commit dacoity. The vehicle of the petitioner was also seized from the place of occurrence. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the bail on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T