Anuj Kumar @ Bambam Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38991 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2022 Thana- KUMAR KHAND District- Madhepura ====================================================== ANUJ KUMAR @ BAMBAM YADAV SON OF AMRENDRA YADAV Resident of village- Kohbarh P.S.- Kumarkhand, District- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 30-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State through virtual mode in view of COVID-19.

Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Kumarkhand P.S. Case No.36/2022 instituted under Section 395 of the IPC.

As per the prosecution story, five unknown accused persons entered the Bank and on the point of pistol, took out Rs. 45,000/- (rupees forty five thousand) from the cash counter and Rs.8,81,741/- from the safe. They were left but not before snatching the mobile phone of the informant. All of them were masked and were 20-25 years of age. Accordingly, the FIR was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38991 of 2022(2) dt.30-09-2022 2/2 lodged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are named accuseds that has come during investigation but regarding petitioner, it is completely false implication on the basis of confessional statement and in the said backdrop, he should be granted bail.

Learned APP on the other hand submits that the matter relates to bank robbery the petitioner is having criminal antecedent and accuseds Dilip Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar have made consistent confessional statement implicating this petitioner and as such he do not deserves bail. There is weight in the submission of the counsel representing the State. The matter relates to bank robbery and the way crime has been committed, and the name of the petitioner has come in course of investigation coupled with the fact that he has criminal antecedent, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner accordingly the bail application is rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T