Right Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29808 of 2014 (2) dt.16-01-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29808 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -280 Year- 2013 Thana -BIHPUR District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Right Kumar Singh Sonof Shri Shailendra Singh Resident of Village AND P.O.-Babhangama, P.S.-Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Das For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishor Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 16-01-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bihpur P.S. Case No. 280 of 2013 registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant after withdrawing rupees seven lacs from the bank was going to distribute the same to the beneficiaries of Bridha Pension after keeping the same in the dickey of the motorcycle and as soon as he reached near Pathan Toli Babhangama some armed persons intercepted him and his associates and took away the money kept in the dickey on the point of pistol and also took away the mobiles. Submission is that the petitioner is not named in the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29808 of 2014 (2) dt.16-01-2015 FIR, nothing has come against the petitioner save and except the confessional statement made before the Police and further that the petitioner is the driver of the Mukhiya and the informant is the Panchayat Secretary and if the petitioner would be there he might have been named, and as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes by submitting that in this case TIP is required.

In the facts and circumstances stated above and considering the fact that in this case TIP is required, this Court is not persuaded to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T