Sumesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36850 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2024 Thana- KANGLI District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sumesh Yadav S/O Late Gena Yadav R/O Village- Pokhariya, P.S- Kangali, Distt.- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 23-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 411, 413 and 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, it is a case of theft of mobiles of the informant.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case, the petitioner was neither apprehended at the spot nor anything has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner as alleged in the FIR and petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition. He next submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36850 of 2024(2) dt.23-05-2024 2/2 that similarly situated co-accused has already been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27161 of 2024.

5.

Learned APP appearing for the State, opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. On perusal of the first information report, seizure list and impugned order dated 01.05.2024, it appears that altogether six mobiles have been recovered from the house of the petitioner which was kept in a tin box and there is sufficient materials available about the involvement of the petitioner as stated in the impugned order, considering which, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T