Dilkhush v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44496 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-549 Year-2020 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== DILKHUSH Son of Md. Nayeem Resident of Village - Bhatgama, P.S.- Bhargama, District - Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Zainul Abedin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-01-2022 Due to the third wave of COVID-19 Pandemic, the matter is being taken up by way of virtual Court proceeding. The matter has been listed under the heading "For Orders" under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks after restoration of normalcy. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State through virtual mode.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Raniganj P.S. Case No. 549 of 2020 registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner and 20 others assaulted the informant and looted his cash mobile etc.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44496 of 2021(2) dt.17-01-2022 2/2 the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village politics. The petitioner is named in the FIR. There is no recovery of any looted article from possession of the petitioner.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the Complaint Case/F.I.R. The informant has identified the petitioner while he alongwith other miscreants was committing the robbery.

Considering the fact that the petitioner has been identified by the informant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders in the court below and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) A.K.V.//- U T