Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39713/2024bail rejected

Saurabh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-06-25Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 39713 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-504 Year-2023 Thana- ARWAL District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Saurabh Kumar son of Mahendra Singh Village- Kohraul Ps- karpi DistArwal ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prince Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Arwal P.S. Case No. 504 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120B, 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66 (D) of the I.T. Act and Section 3 of the Bihar Examination Conduct Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner along with others is of engaging in the crime of committing unfair means through electronic devices in the examination conducted by the Government of Bihar.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 39713 of 2024(2) dt.25-06-2024 2/2 committed no offence. Petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery. The name of the petitioner has come into light on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and the as alleged incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. The co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6612 of 2024.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Arish/- U T